Human evolution Intelligent Design

Researchers: Modern humans triumphed by going beyond the comfort zone

Spread the love

Bright Idea We are told that modern humans are survivors and most other human “species” died out. From Sarah Sloat at Sapiens:

Roberts and Stewart contend that the fossil record, as it stands now, demonstrates that anatomically modern humans had expanded to higher-elevation niches than their hominin predecessors and contemporaries by 80,000 to 50,000 years ago. At least 45,000 years ago, Homo sapiens were colonizing a range of intensely challenging settings, including deserts, tropical rainforests, and Palearctic regions.

That’s not to say that other members of the genus, like Homo erectus and Homo floresiensis, didn’t migrate far beyond Africa. But these ancient hominins stayed within an environmental comfort zone comprising a mixture of woodland and grassland. So far, says Roberts, we’ve only found fossil evidence of Homo sapiens in other settings, although “in some cases, like deserts, it remains debated how arid they were when humans got there.”More.

Other researchers take exception to the claims that being adaptable explains human success. One points out that we don’t actually know that other “species” of humans did not colonize the same areas. We don’t have fossil evidence – but then new fossil evidence turns up all the time. Indeed, some readers may recall the 2012 bombshell when Neanderthal art was found, obliterating many certified lesser human theories. Also, success based on factors unrelated to adaptability to difficult climates may have led to the population growth that forced some modern human groups to make do with less pleasant environments. They may not have been more adaptable; just more numerous.

Note: It’s not clear to some of us just how many human “species” there even were; the whole concept of speciation is a huge mess at this point.

If you are interested in a range of theories about how human uniqueness occurs:

See also: Researcher asks, if ecology caused the human brain to grow so large, what about the role of language?

Human brain: Human intelligence linked to shift toward round brain

At Scientific American: “Cocktail of Brain Chemicals” may be key to what makes us human Hmmm. If we fed these cocktails to a gorilla’s brain, what would happen?

Claim: Humsn brain evolved to need exercise

The answer at last! Humans evolved a big brain to keep track of friends

Mathematical model says humans’ larger brains evolved via food, not culture

Climate change made us smart

Retroviruses play a role in development of human brain?

Tooth size not linked to brain size in early humans

Large human brain size easily explained?

Repurposed mammal bone gene fuels cognition in humans?

Human origins: The war of trivial explanations

Have neuroscientists been on the wrong track about the brain for centuries?

37 Replies to “Researchers: Modern humans triumphed by going beyond the comfort zone

  1. 1
    vmahuna says:

    I believe Ann Gauger, who writes that when you look at the actual fossils, what you see are: a) assorted chimps, b) “modern” humans. There ain’t anything in between, and there never was. One of the scientists who was there when they laid out the bones for Lucy concluded that it was the skeleton of a small gorilla. But of course marketing the find as a prehistoric HUMAN made better marketing sense, money and prestige wise.

    Also, the total number of hominid fossils is VERY small. They can all fit in a single foot locker. And any number of “new” hominid finds are based on locating a SINGLE tooth. Human teeth have different hills and valleys than chimps. So the basic classification is objectively true. But then they start guessing about what the ENTIRE person would have looked like and whether the ESTIMATED age is older than the current guess of homo erectus.

  2. 2
    Quaesitor says:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_human_evolution_fossils

    All those would not fit in a foot locker.

  3. 3
    jdk says:

    re 2: Nice list, Q.

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    video playlist – “Contested Bones” by Paul Giem
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm
    Contested Bones (by Christopher Rupe and John Sanford) is the result of four years of intense research into the primary scientific literature concerning those bones that are thought to represent transitional forms between ape and man. This book’s title reflects the surprising reality that all the famous “hominin” bones continue to be fiercely contested today—even within the field of paleoanthropology.

    New Book Critiques Fossil Human Ancestors – January 4, 2018 | David F. Coppedge
    Excerpt: The new book Contested Bones (by Christopher Rupe and Dr John Sanford}addresses the question; “Did apes evolve into man?” This book provides a comprehensive, insightful, and up-to-date analysis of the bones that have been called “ape-man” or “hominin” fossils.
    For 150 years there has been continuous media hype over a series of bones and bone fragments that were said to prove ape-to-man evolution. One by one, these bones have been questioned, then challenged, and then have been either abandoned or simply put on the shelf. Tens of thousands of bones and bone fragments have now been catalogued, named, and often re-named. Some of these bones have been very strange indeed. Despite all this, the scientists who study these things now conclude that these bones DO NOT SHOW any clear progression from ape to man.,,,
    https://crev.info/2018/01/book-fossil-ancestors/

    “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),

    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 one possible exception to this is brain size, where there are some skulls of intermediate cranial capacity, and there is some increase over time. But even there, when Homo appears, it does so with an abrupt increase in skull-size. ,,,
    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.,,,
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63841.html

    Making human brain evolution look gradual by ignoring enough data… – February 23, 2018
    Excerpt: From U Wisconsin paleoanthropologist John Hawks:
    Bernard Wood’s research group has a new paper on brain size evolution in hominins, led by Andrew Du in Proceedings of the Royal Society, Series B: “Pattern and process in hominin brain size evolution are scale-dependent”.
    In this paper, I notice that the researchers have done a really weird thing: Their analyses include only hominin fossils before 500,000 years ago.…
    The specimens reflect every hominin species from Australopithecus afarensis up to “Homo heidelbergensis”. Modern humans and Neanderthals have been left out of the dataset—they don’t fall within the pre-500,000-year time range.
    On the basis of this dataset, the authors conclude that the entire hominin lineage is compatible with a single pattern of gradual evolutionary increase over time.
    Charts are offered by way of illustration.
    There are two species entirely missing from the data examined by Du and colleagues. The fossil records of endocranial volume in Homo naledi and Homo floresiensis both date to the last 300,000 years. When you include them, they both reject the notion of gradual monotonic increase in brain size.
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/making-human-brain-evolution-look-gradual-by-ignoring-enough-data/

    If Modern Humans Are So Smart, Why Are Our Brains Shrinking? – January 20, 2011
    Excerpt: John Hawks is in the middle of explaining his research on human evolution when he drops a bombshell. Running down a list of changes that have occurred in our skeleton and skull since the Stone Age, the University of Wisconsin anthropologist nonchalantly adds, “And it’s also clear the brain has been shrinking.”
    “Shrinking?” I ask. “I thought it was getting larger.” The whole ascent-of-man thing.,,,
    He rattles off some dismaying numbers: Over the past 20,000 years, the average volume of the human male brain has decreased from 1,500 cubic centimeters to 1,350 cc, losing a chunk the size of a tennis ball. The female brain has shrunk by about the same proportion. “I’d call that major downsizing in an evolutionary eyeblink,” he says. “This happened in China, Europe, Africa—everywhere we look.”
    http://discovermagazine.com/20.....-shrinking

    Skull “Rewrites” Story of Human Evolution — Again – Casey Luskin – October 22, 2013
    Excerpt: “There is a big gap in the fossil record,” Zollikofer told NBC News. “I would put a question mark there. Of course it would be nice to say this was the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and us, but we simply don’t know.” –
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....78221.html

    “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)

    Human/Ape Common Ancestry: Following the Evidence – Casey Luskin – June 2011
    Excerpt: So the researchers constructed an evolutionary tree based on 129 skull and tooth measurements for living hominoids, including gorillas, chimpanzees, orangutans and humans, and did the same with 62 measurements recorded on Old World monkeys, including baboons, mangabeys and macaques. They also drew upon published molecular phylogenies. At the outset, Wood and Collard assumed the molecular evidence was correct. “There were so many different lines of genetic evidence pointing in one direction,” Collard explains. But no matter how the computer analysis was run, the molecular and morphological trees could not be made to match15 (see figure, below). Collard says this casts grave doubt on the reliability of using morphological evidence to determine the fine details of evolutionary trees for higher primates. “It is saying it is positively misleading,” he says. The abstract of the pair’s paper stated provocatively that “existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution are unlikely to be reliable”.[10]
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....nt-9266481

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Ian Tattersall, Jeffery H. Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”,,,,
    “Unusual though Homo sapiens may be morphologically, it is undoubtedly our remarkable cognitive qualities that most strikingly demarcate us from all other extant species. They are certainly what give us our strong subjective sense of being qualitatively different. And they are all ultimately traceable to our symbolic capacity. Human beings alone, it seems, mentally dissect the world into a multitude of discrete symbols, and combine and recombine those symbols in their minds to produce hypotheses of alternative possibilities. When exactly Homo sapiens acquired this unusual ability is the subject of debate.”
    http://www.annualreviews.org/d.....208.100202

    “We are unique and alone now in the world. There is no other animal species that truly resembles our own. A physical and mental chasm separates us from all other living creatures. There is no other bipedal mammal. No other mammal controls and uses fire, writes books, travels in space, paints portraits, or prays. This is not a question of degree. It is all or nothing: there is no semi-bipedal animal, none that makes only small fires, writes only short sentences, builds only rudimentary spaceships, draws just a little bit, or prays only occasionally.
    The extraordinary originality of our species is not common in the living world. Most species belong to groups of similar ones.,,”
    – Juan Arsuaga (paleoanthropologist) – The Neanderthals Necklace – page 3-4

  5. 5
    Quaesitor says:

    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…

    H. habilis’ brain capacity of around 640 cm³ was on average 50% larger than australopithecines, but considerably smaller than the 1350 to 1450 cm³ range of modern Homo sapiens.

  6. 6
    bornagain77 says:

    as to Homo habilis:

    Review of “Contested Bones” (Part 8 – Chapter 8 “Homo habilis”) 3-24-2018 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C68QYWePB64&index=8&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm
    7:19 minute mark quote: “For the last decade, it (habilis) has been largely dismissed as a “poorly defined” or invalid taxon by most of the paleoanthropology community.”

    The entire video has many excellent quotes from leading experts dismissing habilis as a serious candidate for the supposed ‘missing link” between apes and man.

  7. 7
    Quaesitor says:

    “For the last decade, it (habilis) has been largely dismissed as a ‘poorly defined’ or invalid taxon by most of the paleoanthropology community.”

    I think you’re right the species habilis is poorly defined.
    Apparently there’s a type specimen called OH7, and there is disagreement on whether various other specimens belong to the same species as OH7, or another species like rudolfensis.

    But all these fossils actually exist; they are actual real fossils we have found that are partway between australopithecines and humans:

    Some specimens clearly have a larger cranial capacity than that of Australopithecus, and the capacity increases progressively afterward with H. erectus, archaic H. sapiens, and modern humans.

    Britannica, Homo habilis

  8. 8
    bornagain77 says:

    Quote at the 41:49 minute mark:

    “Habilis is widely recognized by paleo-experts as an invalid taxon, or at best an incoherent assemblage of fragmentary bones. Habilis is a “wastebasket taxon”- a comixture of Australopithecus (ape) and Homo (human) bones. Habilis has failed to fill the “vast gulf” that separates australopith and man. Habilis can now be added to the growing list of falsely claimed “ape-men.” John Reader is a distinguished human evolution researcher in the department of Anthropology at University College, London. In his book ‘Missing Links’. Reader effectively summarizes the current status of Habilis.
    “Nearly half a century of accumulating evidence has left Homo Habilis more open to question, more insecure than it ever was… Homo Habilis remains more of an evolutionary idea than an example of anatomical fact linking one species to another.”
    – John Reader – Missing Links
    – Review of “Contested Bones” (Part 8 – Chapter 8 “Homo habilis”) 3-24-2018 by Paul Giem
    https://youtu.be/C68QYWePB64?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm&t=2504

    In the following video clip John Reader goes further and states that ‘there really aren’t any missing links’.

    John Reader: is it possible to discover ‘the missing link’? – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0_BathS7LY

    And in the following video clip John Reader discusses the over the top evolutionary bias of researchers behind their supposed “new discoveries” (i.e. researchers imagining what they want to see in ‘new’ fossils instead of seeing what is actually there within the fossil evidence).

    Can scientists draw firm conclusions from fossil finds? – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjCvTb-slpo

  9. 9
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, when looking at the entire fossil record without ‘evolutionary blinders’ on, we find that the entirety of the fossil record reveals a pattern that is very anti-Darwinian, i.e. “upside-down”, in its make-up.

    Investigating Evolution: The Cambrian Explosion Part 1 – (4:45 minute mark – upside-down fossil record) video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4DkbmuRhXRY
    Part 2 – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iZFM48XIXnk

    Challenging Fossil of a Little Fish
    Excerpt: “In Chen’s view, his evidence supports a history of life that runs opposite to the standard evolutionary tree diagrams, a progression he calls top-down evolution.”
    Jun-Yuan Chen is professor at the Nanjing Institute of Paleontology and Geology
    http://www.fredheeren.com/boston.htm

    “Darwin had a lot of trouble with the fossil record because if you look at the record of phyla in the rocks as fossils why when they first appear we already see them all. The phyla are fully formed. It’s as if the phyla were created first and they were modified into classes and we see that the number of classes peak later than the number of phyla and the number of orders peak later than that. So it’s kind of a top down succession, you start with this basic body plans, the phyla, and you diversify them into classes, the major sub-divisions of the phyla, and these into orders and so on. So the fossil record is kind of backwards from what you would expect from in that sense from what you would expect from Darwin’s ideas.”
    James W. Valentine – as quoted from “On the Origin of Phyla: Interviews with James W. Valentine” – (as stated at 1:16:36 mark of video)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtdFJXfvlm8&feature=player_detailpage#t=4595

    In Explaining the Cambrian Explosion, Has the TalkOrigins Archive Resolved Darwin’s Dilemma? – JonathanM – May 2012
    Excerpt: it is the pattern of morphological disparity preceding diversity that is fundamentally at odds with the neo-Darwinian scenario of gradualism. All of the major differences (i.e. the higher taxonomic categories such as phyla) appear first in the fossil record and then the lesser taxonomic categories such as classes, orders, families, genera and species appear later. On the Darwinian view, one would expect to see all of the major differences in body plan appear only after numerous small-scale speciation events. But this is not what we observe.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....59171.html

    “As Whittington analyzed the Cambrian fauna at the Burgess [in the 1960s], he realized that Walcott (before 1917) had grossly underestimated the morphological disparity of this group of animals. Many of the creatures in the assemblage featured unique body designs, unique anatomical structures, or both. Opabinia, with its five eyes, fifteen distinct segments, and claw at the end of a long proboscis exemplified the unique forms on display at the Burgess. But so did Hallucigenia, Wiwaxia, Nectocaris, and many other Burgess animals. To this day, paleontologists describing Nectocaris, for example, can’t decide whether it more closely resembles an arthropod, a chordate, or a cephalopod (a class of mollusk)”.
    Stephen Meyer – ‘Darwin’s Doubt’ (pp. 52–53).

    Disparity precedes diversity – graph
    http://www.veritas-ucsb.org/li.....ages/G.gif

    Disparity preceding Diversity graphic on Cambrian Explosion from ‘Darwin’s Doubt’
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....74341.html

  10. 10
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, disparity (large differences) preceding diversity (small differences) is not only found in the Cambrian Explosion but is found after it as well. In fact it is a defining characteristic of the overall fossil record.

    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.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-s.....ution.html
    graph
    http://www.pnas.org/content/11.....medium.gif

    The Shape of Evolution 4-15-2017 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RacxIajD380
    paper analysed in the preceding video:
    Clades reach highest morphological disparity early in their evolution – 2013
    Excerpt: Evolution is usually characterized as an essentially contingent and unpredictable process (1). This makes it very difficult to identify general rules comparable to those that typify the other natural sciences.,,,
    http://www.pnas.org/content/110/34/13875.full

    “The point emerges that if we examine the fossil record in detail, whether at the level of orders or of species, we find’ over and over again’ not gradual evolution, but the sudden explosion of one group at the expense of another.”
    Paleontologist, Derek V. Ager (Department of Geology & Oceanography, University College, Swansea, UK)

    “It is a feature of the known fossil record that most taxa appear abruptly. They are not, as a rule, led up to by a sequence of almost imperceptibly changing forerunners such as Darwin believed should be usual in evolution…This phenomenon becomes more universal and more intense as the hierarchy of categories is ascended. Gaps among known species are sporadic and often small. Gaps among known orders, classes and phyla are systematic and almost always large.”
    G.G.Simpson – one of the most influential American Paleontologist of the 20th century

    “Given the fact of evolution, one would expect the fossils to document a gradual steady change from ancestral forms to the descendants. But this is not what the paleontologist finds. Instead, he or she finds gaps in just about every phyletic series.” –
    Ernst Mayr – Professor Emeritus, Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard University

    “What is missing are the many intermediate forms hypothesized by Darwin, and the continual divergence of major lineages into the morphospace between distinct adaptive types.”
    Robert L Carroll (born 1938) – vertebrate paleontologist who specialises in Paleozoic and Mesozoic amphibians

    “In virtually all cases a new taxon appears for the first time in the fossil record with most definitive features already present, and practically no known stem-group forms.”
    Fossils and Evolution, TS Kemp – Curator of Zoological Collections, Oxford University, Oxford Uni Press, p246, 1999

    Bechly: In the Fossil Record, “Abrupt Appearances Are the Rule” – February 20, 2018,
    Excerpt: , you might think that the Cambrian explosion some 530 million years is a singularity, a freak of nature: the sudden appearance of phyla, major categories of life,,,, Yet Dr. Bechly points out that the problem posed by the Cambrian event is not singular but in fact has been repeated numerous times in the long history of life — sudden explosions, abrupt appearances, followed by diversification. Each should multiply the distress of Darwin’s defenders, if they are honest with themselves about it.
    In a chapter co-authored with philosopher of science Stephen Meyer in the recent book Theistic Evolution: A Scientific, Philosophical, and Theological Critique (pg. 340-352), Bechly details 19 such “explosions.” As he observes, in the fossil record, “Abrupt appearances are the rule.” Each such event poses the same challenge to Darwinian thinking that the Cambrian explosion does.
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/02/bechly-in-the-fossil-record-abrupt-appearances-are-the-rule/

    Of related note, the genetic evidence is also far more antagonistic to Darwinian presuppositions than they will ever honestly admit to the public:

    Sweeping gene survey reveals new facets of evolution – May 28, 2018
    Excerpt: Darwin perplexed,,,
    And yet—another unexpected finding from the study—species have very clear genetic boundaries, and there’s nothing much in between.
    “If individuals are stars, then species are galaxies,” said Thaler. “They are compact clusters in the vastness of empty sequence space.”
    The absence of “in-between” species is something that also perplexed Darwin, he said.
    https://phys.org/news/2018-05-gene-survey-reveals-facets-evolution.html

  11. 11
    bornagain77 says:

    It is also interesting to note that the the basic ‘form’ any particular organism may take is now found to forever be beyond the reductive materialistic explanations that have been posited by Darwinists.

    In the following article entitled ‘Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable’, which studied the derivation of macroscopic properties from a complete microscopic description, the researchers remark that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,, The researchers further commented that their findings challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”

    Quantum physics problem proved unsolvable: Gödel and Turing enter quantum physics – December 9, 2015
    Excerpt: A mathematical problem underlying fundamental questions in particle and quantum physics is provably unsolvable,,,
    It is the first major problem in physics for which such a fundamental limitation could be proven. The findings are important because they show that even a perfect and complete description of the microscopic properties of a material is not enough to predict its macroscopic behaviour.,,,
    “We knew about the possibility of problems that are undecidable in principle since the works of Turing and Gödel in the 1930s,” added Co-author Professor Michael Wolf from Technical University of Munich. “So far, however, this only concerned the very abstract corners of theoretical computer science and mathematical logic. No one had seriously contemplated this as a possibility right in the heart of theoretical physics before. But our results change this picture. From a more philosophical perspective, they also challenge the reductionists’ point of view, as the insurmountable difficulty lies precisely in the derivation of macroscopic properties from a microscopic description.”
    http://phys.org/news/2015-12-q.....godel.html

    Moreover, multiple lines of empirical evidence now also confirm that the reductive materialistic framework of Darwinian evolution is found to be grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic form.

    Darwinism vs Biological Form – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyNzNPgjM4w

    In conclusion, and to state what should be glaringly obvious, since neo-Darwinian explanations are grossly inadequate for explaining how any particular organism might achieve its basic form, then neo-Darwinian speculations for how one type of organism might transform into another type of organism are based on pure fantasy and have no discernible experimental basis in reality.

    Whereas, on the other hand, Theism, especially with recent breakthroughs in quantum biology, is found to be very well supported.

    Darwinian Materialism vs Quantum Biology – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHdD2Am1g5Y

    As Stuart Hameroff notes in this following video, “the quantum information,, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed.,,, it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”

    “Let’s say the heart stops beating. The blood stops flowing. The microtubules lose their quantum state. But the quantum information, which is in the microtubules, isn’t destroyed. It can’t be destroyed. It just distributes and dissipates to the universe at large. If a patient is resuscitated, revived, this quantum information can go back into the microtubules and the patient says, “I had a near death experience. I saw a white light. I saw a tunnel. I saw my dead relatives.,,” Now if they’re not revived and the patient dies, then it’s possible that this quantum information can exist outside the body. Perhaps indefinitely as a soul.”
    – Stuart Hameroff – Quantum Entangled Consciousness – Life After Death – video (5:00 minute mark)
    https://youtu.be/jjpEc98o_Oo?t=300

    Verses:

    James 2:26
    As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

    Matthew 16:26
    For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world and lose his own soul? Or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

  12. 12
    Quaesitor says:

    bornagain77

    That’s all very interesting. But was only commenting on:

    “There are no transitional fossils linking us to that group [australopithecines] …”

    But there clearly are fossils with brains 50% larger than australopithecines but half the size of modern humans. You’re right that it is doubtful whether they are a distinct species called habilis. But whatever they’re called the fossils actually do exist and they’re apparently transitional between australopithecines and modern humans.

  13. 13
    bornagain77 says:

    Quaesitor,

    There are many very questionable methods and assumptions that went into ‘inventing’ the taxon of homo habilis or as you put it, “whatever they’re called”.

    Not least of which, the bulk of habilis fossils were assembled from extremely mixed ‘fossil beds’ in which many different fossil bones, including humans, were present. They simply had no way of knowing which bones definitively went where.

    I personally had no idea how biased and shoddy the work behind the purported homo habilis taxon was until I watched the video and saw, as leading paleonanthropolgists themselves admitted, the extreme bias that went into it.

    Again

    7:19 minute mark quote: “For the last decade, it (habilis) has been largely dismissed as a “poorly defined” or invalid taxon by most of the paleoanthropology community.”
    Review of “Contested Bones” (Part 8 – Chapter 8 “Homo habilis”) 3-24-2018 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C68QYWePB64&index=8&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm

    and again:

    “Habilis is widely recognized by paleo-experts as an invalid taxon, or at best an incoherent assemblage of fragmentary bones. Habilis is a “wastebasket taxon”- a comixture of Australopithecus (ape) and Homo (human) bones. Habilis has failed to fill the “vast gulf” that separates australopith and man. Habilis can now be added to the growing list of falsely claimed “ape-men.” John Reader is a distinguished human evolution researcher in the department of Anthropology at University College, London. In his book ‘Missing Links’. Reader effectively summarizes the current status of Habilis.
    “Nearly half a century of accumulating evidence has left Homo Habilis more open to question, more insecure than it ever was… Homo Habilis remains more of an evolutionary idea than an example of anatomical fact linking one species to another.”
    – John Reader – Missing Links
    – Review of “Contested Bones” (Part 8 – Chapter 8 “Homo habilis”) 3-24-2018 by Paul Giem
    https://youtu.be/C68QYWePB64?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm&t=2504

    Given the highly questionable method in which the fossil habilis was “invented”, I provided much more solid evidence from the entire fossil record which shows a pattern that is thoroughly at odds with the ‘bottom up’ pattern that Darwinists try to present to the public.

    If you were concerned with truth instead of propaganda you would have readily admitted that your evidence for a transitional form is highly dubious and that the default position, given the entire fossil record, should be one of Intelligent Design instead of Darwinian evolution.

    That is only fair. But alas, I’ve yet to meet a Darwinian atheist who treated the evidence fairly. (Small Caveat,,, the few Darwinian atheists that I have met that have treated the evidence fairly are no longer are Darwinian atheists)

  14. 14
    Quaesitor says:

    Well my understanding is that intelligent design is perfectly okay with transitional fossils, just not a blind watchmaker mechanism to explain them.

    Britannica says that there are three mostly complete skulls of so-called “habilis” which have a brain size of 600-750cc, which is partway from australopithecus to human, and I’m fine with that and see no reason to doubt they exist … they’ve even got pictures!

  15. 15
    bornagain77 says:

    After seeing the video I listed, and reading many quotes from leading paleoanthropologists, I certainly have more than reasonable doubt about the validity of the habilis taxon,, especially after seeing the extreme bias (of Leakey and others) that went into ‘inventing’ it in the first place.

    Moreover, I did not say that Intelligent Design was not “OK” with transitional fossils. My claim is that Darwinian evolution is NOT OK with the extreme lack of transitional fossils witnessed throughout the entire fossil record. A stunning lack of transitionals that is the by all rights THE defining characteristic of the entire fossil record.

    Moreover, the top down pattern witnessed for the ENTIRE fossil record is completely incompatible with ‘bottom up’ Darwinian presuppostions.

    If Darwinian evolution were a falsifiable science, instead of a unfalsifiable pseudoscience, the fossil record would definitely count as another falsifying evidence out of many falsifying evidences.

    But alas, Darwinian evolution is not, and never has been, a falsifiable science, but has always been, basically, a religion for atheists.

    Darwin’s Theory vs Falsification – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rzw0JkuKuQ

    “Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”
    ~ Cornelius Hunter – Arsenic-Based Biochemistry: Turning Poison Into Wine – December 2, 2010
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....rning.html

    Darwinian Evolution simply fails to qualify as a science by any reasonable measure of science one might wish to invoke

    “There are five standard tests for a scientific hypothesis. Has anyone observed the phenomenon — in this case, Evolution — as it occurred and recorded it? Could other scientists replicate it? Could any of them come up with a set of facts that, if true, would contradict the theory (Karl Popper’s “falsifiability” tests)? Could scientists make predictions based on it? Did it illuminate hitherto unknown or baffling areas of science? In the case of Evolution… well… no… no… no… no… and no.”
    – Tom Wolfe – The Kingdom of Speech – page 17

    Darwinian Evolution Fails the Five Standard Tests of a Scientific Hypothesis – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L7f_fyoPybw

  16. 16
    Quaesitor says:

    So you agree there actually are fossil specimens with brains partway between australopithecines and humans?

  17. 17
    ET says:

    Quaesitor- The problem of humans evolving from non-humans, especially knuckle-walking quadrupeds is one of kinesiology. If you change the bone structure and musculature, as would have had to have happened if humans have a knuckle-walker as an ancestor, you have to change the muscle attachment points along the bones. This cannot be done willy-nilly and there isn’t any evidence that such a thing is determined by genetics.

    There just isn’t any testable mechanism capable of producing the anatomical and physiological differences.

  18. 18
    Quaesitor says:

    ET, I think the mechanism is intelligent design so I’m not sure I agree with your comment.

    I was only saying how there are clearly fossils with brains partway between australopithecines and humans, because I don’t think anyone should be denying this because it’s not a problem for intelligent design.

    ETA: There’s a genetic disease called ulnar-mammary syndrome that changes the pattern of muscle attachment sites on the bones, so maybe those things are connected after all.

  19. 19
    bornagain77 says:

    Quaesitor, I am not fluent on the range of ape skull sizes. Moreover, even if there were some extinct ape species with a reasonably large brain, it would not help you be ‘scientific’ in the least in your claim that it is a ‘gradual’ transitional fossil.. As Henry Gee himself stated: “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.”

    “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, 1999, pg. 113 & 117

    Bottom line, in science imagination should be tightly constrained by evidence instead of being allowed to run around unrestrained as it currently allowed to do in the Darwinian worldview:

    This following quote sums up what materialists appear to be doing with this supposed ‘evidence’ for human evolution:

    “But what is the basis for the human evolution thesis put forward by evolutionists? It is the existence of plenty of fossils on which evolutionists are able to build imaginary interpretations. Throughout history, more than 6,000 species of ape have lived, and most of them have become extinct. Today, only 120 species live on the earth. These 6,000 or so species of ape, most of which are extinct, constitute a rich resource for the evolutionists to build imaginary interpretations with.”
    http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/origin_of_man.html

    And as Ian Tattersall himself stated:

    “Something extraordinary, if totally fortuitous, happened with the birth of our species….Homo sapiens is as distinctive an entity as exists on the face of the Earth, and should be dignified as such instead of being adulterated with every reasonably large-brained hominid fossil that happened to come along.”
    Anthropologist Ian Tattersall, The Fossil Trail: How We Know What We Think We Know about Human Evolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 246.
    (emeritus curator at the American Museum of Natural History)

    Of supplemental note:

    The Human-Ape Missing Link — Still Missing – July 18, 2017
    Excerpt: Here is a long, substantive, and interesting article from the BBC — “We still have not found the missing link between us and apes.” It is interesting for two reasons.
    – 1. It admits that we haven’t found anything that resembles the last common ancestor (LCA) between humans and apes, what author Colin Barras calls the “missing link.”
    – 2. It admits that it’s hard to even agree on what the LCA might have looked like. —
    What it doesn’t do is admit the even bigger problem: that we don’t even have transitional forms between Australopithecus and Homo. This is a major omission.,,,,
    https://evolutionnews.org/2017/07/the-human-ape-missing-link-still-missing/

  20. 20
    ET says:

    Quaesitor:

    ET, I think the mechanism is intelligent design so I’m not sure I agree with your comment.

    Well it would take intervention. Just so you know

  21. 21
    Quaesitor says:

    bornagain77

    Quaesitor, I am not fluent on the range of ape skull sizes.

    You can click on the link to Britannica and look at the pictures.

    It is very common for designers to modify pre-existing designs along the way to a newer design so I don’t have a problem with recognising these fossils as transitional. I don’t see how anyone can really deny it because they sure look like it: they are about halfway in between apes and humans in terms of brain size and apparently the teeth are halfway too.

  22. 22
    bornagain77 says:

    Quaesitor, I granted for the sake of argument that there may have been reasonably large brained extinct apes. And I further highlighted how this would still be of no ‘scientific’ help for you in establishing your gradualism scenario. You acknowledged none of the insurmountable problems and continue to hold that habilis, or whatever it is, is ‘transitional’.

    I could go on with other evidences falsifying gradualism, but it is clear, from your actions thus far, that you are ‘religiously’ committed to gradualism in spite of any of the overwhelming scientific evidence from the ENTIRE fossil record that has been presented to you to the contrary of your position.

    Good luck with your blind faith in gradualism. The Cambrian Explosion salutes you! 🙂

    If you ever want to talk science instead of faith I’ll be the first to listen.

  23. 23
    Quaesitor says:

    bornagain77

    If humans were created from nothing, or by modifying an earlier ape design, aren’t both scenarios compatible with intelligent design?

  24. 24
    ET says:

    Quaesitor- I apologize- you are quite correct that intelligent design is a possible mechanism to produce the transformations. It would be interesting to figure out how the software changed to promote the physical changes

  25. 25
    ET says:

    As for the fossil record it is very telling that the fact the bulk of it is of marine invertebrates- over 95%. And in that bulk evidence for universal common descent is either missing or ambiguous at best.

  26. 26
    cmow says:

    Quaesitor @ 14 and elsewhere

    Britannica says that there are three mostly complete skulls of so-called “habilis” which have a brain size of 600-750cc, which is partway from australopithecus to human, and I’m fine with that and see no reason to doubt they exist … they’ve even got pictures!

    I don’t think this is true.
    There’s OH 7. The holotype discovered by the Leakey. There is part of the lower jaw with some teeth and only two small parts of the skull. Not mostly complete.
    There’s OH24. Mostly complete of the skulls, but also severely crushed and distorted – trampled by cattle.
    Then, there’s ER 1813. Also mostly complete.
    You may be including ER1470, but that is generally now considered rudolfensis, not habilis.It is mostly complete though.
    Brain size:
    ER 1813 = 510 cc. A large australopith.
    OH 24 = 600 cc. A very large australopth or paranthropus.
    OH 7 = Estimates range from 590 cc to 710 cc . Originally, it was put at 680 cc. Really hard to tell from two fragments. As BA77 noted, and you conceded, a mess of a fossil. A mix of bones scattered across a site with many other bones.
    In your post #5, you quote the average brain capacity at 640 cc. That doesn’t really add up. It’s under 600 cc. But still building an average brain capacity for a species on three specimens is pretty meaningless anyway.
    More importantly, to the point of what BA77 was trying to say – despite what Brittanica says, many paleo-experts like Lee Berger and others quoted by BA77 would consider habilis to be an empty taxon.
    So these three skulls of habilis aren’t really habilis (because there’s no such thing.) They are Australopithecus. They’ve got pictures for sure – yes these fossils exist and they are bigger than the average australopith but that doesn’t mean they represent a step on the path to being human.

  27. 27
    bornagain77 says:

    per ENST:

    Inexplicable Species and the Theory of Evolution
    Geoffrey Simmons – August 8, 2018
    Excerpt: A Striking Absence of Transitions
    Many modern authorities continue to use fossils as proof of evolution, chronologically lining up those which appear similar, yet the gaps have only grown more glaring with time. We now delve into the cellular level comparing chemical processes, electrical charges, and genetic differences. It seems to be a secret, but researchers know that it would take millions of internal changes for dinosaurs to evolve into birds, flat plants into trees, fish into amphibians. Note there are no half-fish/half-salamanders or one-third monkey/two-thirds humans, ever.
    Upon close inspection, the absence of transitions (smaller steps) is striking. We should be up to our collective elbows with transitional species that once came about by trial and error, and failed to survive. Not so….
    https://evolutionnews.org/2018/08/inexplicable-species-and-the-theory-of-evolution/
    Dr. Simmons is the author of What Darwin Didn’t Know and Billions of Missing Links

  28. 28
    cmow says:

    Regarding vmahuna’s original comment:

    The fossil record for human ancestry as “unhelpful”

    (p. 554).

    The total world archive of hominid and early human bones” could fit “into the back of a pickup truck.

    (A Short History of Nearly Everything by Bill Bryson, Black Swan (2003), p. 529).

  29. 29
    goodusername says:

    cmow,

    Do you have any evidence that the habiline skulls are larger than your average Australopithecine skull?
    At best, habilis were about the same size as Australopithecus, and, if anything, were a tad smaller. (An exception being ER1470, who was quite large.)
    The only thing larger about the habiline skulls than the Australopithecus skulls were the larger, more bulbous, brain cases.

    There’s no right answer to whether habilis should be included with Australopithecines or Homo, but at the time when the Australopithecines were vanishing (minus Paranthropus) and just before H. erectus arrived on the scene, we have what appears to be large brained, flat faced, Australopithecines.
    Whether one calls them Australopithecine or Homo, it certainly appears that a transition is occurring between the two.

    For every argument (and there are many) for including habilis with the Australopithecines, there are counter-arguments for including them with Homo. Indeed, there have been several stories the past couple of years on this site arguing that habilis (and rudolfensis) should be lumped with erectus, particularly in light of the Dmanisi discovery.

    Skull 5 of Dmanisi has a brain size no larger than the ones above (well under 600cc) despite being a relatively quite large individual. If it were found in Africa, and wasn’t found with four other skulls that are more clearly H. erectus, it actually may have bee classified as a habilis rather than H. erectus.

  30. 30
    Quaesitor says:

    goodusername

    Whether one calls them Australopithecine or Homo, it certainly appears that a transition is occurring between the two.

    Yes, that’s what I’ve been trying to say.

    The brain cases are not just bigger, they have different teeth and the skull structures in the palate and nose area (I’m reading this from Britannica).

    If we really want to understand how the design of humans was implemented we need to take account of these progressive stages.

  31. 31
    bornagain77 says:

    The fossil record is far more discontinuous than Darwinists, and/or Theistic Evolutionists, want to believe and/or to ever let on.

    Evolution of the Genus Homo – Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences – Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
    Excerpt: “Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis.”
    http://arjournals.annualreview.....208.100202

    The changing face of genus Homo – Wood; Collard
    Excerpt: the current criteria for identifying species of Homo are difficult, if not impossible, to operate using paleoanthropological evidence. We discuss alternative, verifiable, criteria, and show that when these new criteria are applied to Homo, two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, fail to meet them.
    http://www3.interscience.wiley.....0/abstract

    As was already shown, the Darwinian bias, by Leakey and others, that went into ‘inventing’ homo habilis was rampant:

    As a Taxonomic Group, “Homo habilis” Is Challenged in the Journal Science – Casey Luskin – September 9, 2015
    Excerpt: in a recent article in Science, “Defining the genus Homo,” Jeffrey H. Schwartz and Ian Tattersall explain that Homo habilis (literally, “handy man”) was originally placed within Homo because researchers wanted an old species that apparently made tools:
    In 1964, Leakey and colleagues attributed the newly discovered ~1.8-million-year-old partial mandible, skullcap and hand (OH7) and foot (OH8), plus other materials from Olduvai Gorge, to the new species Homo habilis. This species replaced the very roughly contemporaneous South African australopiths in Mayr’s transformationist scenario, although there was scant morphological justification for including any of this very ancient material in Homo. Indeed, the main motivation appears to have been Leakey’s desire to identify this hominid as the maker of the simple stone tools found in the lower layers of the Gorge, following the dictum of Man the Toolmaker. This association has subsequently proven highly dubious. The inclusion in Homo of the H. habilis fossils so broadened the morphology of the genus that further hominids from other sites could be shoehorned into it almost without regard to their physical appearance. As a result, the largely unexamined definition of Homo became even murkier.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....99181.html

    7:19 minute mark quote: “For the last decade, it (habilis) has been largely dismissed as a “poorly defined” or invalid taxon by most of the paleoanthropology community.”
    Review of “Contested Bones” (Part 8 – Chapter 8 “Homo habilis”) 3-24-2018 by Paul Giem – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C68QYWePB64&index=8&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm

    and again:

    “Habilis is widely recognized by paleo-experts as an invalid taxon, or at best an incoherent assemblage of fragmentary bones. Habilis is a “wastebasket taxon”- a comixture of Australopithecus (ape) and Homo (human) bones. Habilis has failed to fill the “vast gulf” that separates australopith and man. Habilis can now be added to the growing list of falsely claimed “ape-men.” John Reader is a distinguished human evolution researcher in the department of Anthropology at University College, London. In his book ‘Missing Links’. Reader effectively summarizes the current status of Habilis.
    “Nearly half a century of accumulating evidence has left Homo Habilis more open to question, more insecure than it ever was… Homo Habilis remains more of an evolutionary idea than an example of anatomical fact linking one species to another.”
    – John Reader – Missing Links
    – Review of “Contested Bones” (Part 8 – Chapter 8 “Homo habilis”) 3-24-2018 by Paul Giem
    https://youtu.be/C68QYWePB64?list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm&t=2504

    Habilis, whatever it was, was an ape not a ‘homo’:

    A Big Bang Theory of Homo – Casey Luskin – August 2012
    Excerpt: To the contrary, she explains, habilis “displays much stronger similarities to African ape limb proportions” than even Lucy. She called these results “unexpected in view of previous accounts of Homo habilis as a link between australopithecines and humans.”
    Without habilis as an intermediate, it is difficult to find fossil hominins to serve as direct transitional forms between the australopithecines and Homo. Rather, the fossil record shows dramatic and abrupt changes that correspond to the appearance of Homo.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63141.html

    The same sort of rampant bias within evolutionary thinking is found for erectus:

    Review of “Contested Bones” (Part 4 – Chapter 4 “Homo erectus”) 2-17-2018
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9rtK0ScrQn4&index=4&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm

    Do racial assumptions prevent recognizing Homo erectus as fully human? – June 22, 2018
    Excerpt: However, the problem for evolutionary theorists gets worse because recent evidence shows that Homo erectus had a large cultural inventory greater than the Tasmanians. Homo erectus were capable of all of the following (Rupe, 72):
    Boat-building and sailing
    Language and reasoning
    Jewelry making
    Fire making
    Bone and stone tools
    Coordinated hunting
    Kinship and family structures
    Soci-ethical standards
    The evidence is clear from cultural inventory that Homo erectus was human and it is, in part, a cultural bias that prevents ND Splitters from recognizing their humanity..
    https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/do-racial-assumptions-prevent-recognizing-homo-erectus-as-fully-human/

    The following article reveals how easily the ‘guesswork’ within evolutionary thinking can be overthrown by a single find. The following article is entitled “Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray”

    Skull of Homo erectus throws story of human evolution into disarray – OCT. 17, 2013
    Excerpt: Over decades excavating sites in Africa, researchers have named half a dozen different species of early human ancestor, but most, if not all, are now on shaky ground.,,,
    If the scientists are right, it would trim the base of the human evolutionary tree and spell the end for names such as H rudolfensis, H gautengensis, H ergaster and possibly H habilis.
    http://www.theguardian.com/sci.....-evolution

    As Henry Gee himself noted, the evidence for human evolution is so flimsy that, “All you need is just one (fossil find) to completely blow apart your well entrenched comfortable idea of the linear progress of evolution.”

    “Despite decades of patient work we still know rather little about the evolution of humanity…the remains we have are very scarce and very meager and that means that there are probably lots of different species that existed, lived for hundreds of thousands of years and then became extinct and we know nothing about them… All you need is just one to completely blow apart your well entrenched comfortable idea of the linear progress of evolution.”
    Henry Gee – Editor Of Nature Magazine

    If one fossil find can “completely blow apart your well entrenched comfortable idea of the linear progress of evolution”, then that should be a HUGE wake up call to Darwinists that their supposedly unquestionable beliefs about human evolution are not so well established in the first place.

    As to 1470 which has been mentioned a few times in this thread thus far, the same rampant bias by Darwinists is found for how it was interpreted:

    “One famous fossil skull, discovered in 1972 in northern Kenya, changed its appearance dramatically depending on how the upper jaw was connected to the rest of the cranium. Roger Lewin recounts an occasion when paleoanthropologists Alan Walker, Michael Day, and Richard Leakey were studying the two sections of skull 1470. According to Lewin, Walker said: You could hold the [upper jaw] forward, and give it a long face, or you could tuck it in, making the face short…. How you held it really depended on your preconceptions. It was very interesting watching what people did with it. Lewin reports that Leakey recalled the incident, too: Yes. If you held it one way, it looked like one thing; if you held it another, it looked like something else.”
    Roger Lewin, Bones of Contention, Second Edition (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1997), p 160

    Man’s Earliest Direct Ancestors Looked More Apelike Than Previously Believed – March 27, 2007
    Excerpt: “Dr. Leakey produced an intrinsically biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,”,,,
    “Because he did not employ biological principles, Dr. Leakey produced a reconstruction that could not have existed in real life,” 
    – Dr. Timothy Bromage
    per science daily

    Despite how much Darwinists may wish for gradual transitions between apes and man, the fossil evidence simply does not support what their collective unrestrained imaginations want so desperately to believe in:

    “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)

  32. 32
    Quaesitor says:

    bornagain77

    What I’m discussing here the fossils that are in between australopithecus apes and humans, in terms of brain size and teeth and so on. So its clearly possible that the design of humans was implemented in various stages, and its interesting to look at what those stages might be.

    You made a point that the in-between ones probably don’t belong to a specific species habilis; ok, thanks, I learned something.

    But I totally don’t understand any of your recent comments about how evolutionists are biased, and then quoting evolutionists like Henry Gee agreeing evolution is flimsy and making him sound unbiased. I mean … wait, what? That doesn’t make sense, and why should I care he thinks anyway? I can see the fossils and the brain sizes for myself.

    You’ve already agreed we’ve got fossils of apes with small brains, then apes with bigger brains, then humans, which is all I was saying in the first place, so what exactly are you disagreeing with?

    Sorry if this comes across sounding a bit irritated but I’m just not getting it. Can you explain?

  33. 33
    bornagain77 says:

    Although, as was shown in the “Contested Bones” video series,,,

    “Contested Bones” by Paul Giem – video playlist
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e6ZOKj-YaHA&list=PLHDSWJBW3DNU_twNBjopIqyFOwo_bTkXm
    Contested Bones (by Christopher Rupe and John Sanford) is the result of four years of intense research into the primary scientific literature concerning those bones that are thought to represent transitional forms between ape and man. This book’s title reflects the surprising reality that all the famous “hominin” bones continue to be fiercely contested today—even within the field of paleoanthropology.

    ,as was shown,, there is much disagreement between leading paleoanthropologists themselves about the validity of the purported fossil evidence for human evolution, for example:

    “The evolutionary events that led to the origin of the Homo lineage are an enduring puzzle in paleoanthropology, chiefly because the fossil record from between 3 million and 2 million years ago is frustratingly sparse, especially in eastern Africa.”2
    “But with so little evidence to go on, the origin of our genus has remained as mysterious as ever.”3
    “The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.’4
    2. Kimbel, W. H. 2013. Palaeoanthropology: Hesitation on hominin history. Nature. 497 (7451): 573-574.
    3. Wong, K. 2012. First of Our Kind: Could Australopithecus sediba Be Our Long Lost Ancestor? Scientific American. 306 (4): 30-39.
    4. Wood, B. 2011. Did early Homo migrate “out of” or “in to” Africa? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. 108 (26): 10375-10376.
    http://www.icr.org/article/10016

    Although there is much disagreement between leading paleoanthropologists themselves about the validity of the purported fossil evidence for human evolution, the one place that leading Darwinists themselves agree that they have no clue how a particularly unique human trait could have possibly evolved is with human language.

    In 2014 a group of leading evolutionary scientists stated that, after 4 decades of intense research, they have “essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,”

    Leading Evolutionary Scientists Admit We Have No Evolutionary Explanation of Human Language – December 19, 2014
    Excerpt: Understanding the evolution of language requires evidence regarding origins and processes that led to change. In the last 40 years, there has been an explosion of research on this problem as well as a sense that considerable progress has been made. We argue instead that the richness of ideas is accompanied by a poverty of evidence, with essentially no explanation of how and why our linguistic computations and representations evolved.,,,
    (Marc Hauser, Charles Yang, Robert Berwick, Ian Tattersall, Michael J. Ryan, Jeffrey Watumull, Noam Chomsky and Richard C. Lewontin, “The mystery of language evolution,” Frontiers in Psychology, Vol 5:401 (May 7, 2014).)
    Casey Luskin added: “It’s difficult to imagine much stronger words from a more prestigious collection of experts.”
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....92141.html

    Best selling author Tom Wolfe was so taken aback by this honest confession by leading Darwinists that he wrote a book on the subject. Wolfe summed up his main argument in his book in the following quote: “In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.”

    “Speech is 95 percent plus of what lifts man above animal! Physically, man is a sad case. His teeth, including his incisors, which he calls eyeteeth, are baby-size and can barely penetrate the skin of a too-green apple. His claws can’t do anything but scratch him where he itches. His stringy-ligament body makes him a weakling compared to all the animals his size. Animals his size? In hand-to-paw, hand-to-claw, or hand-to-incisor combat, any animal his size would have him for lunch. Yet man owns or controls them all, every animal that exists, thanks to his superpower: speech.”
    —Tom Wolfe, in the introduction to his book, The Kingdom of Speech

    Simply put, although humans are fairly defenseless creatures in the wild compared to other creatures, such as bears, lions and sharks, etc.., nonetheless, humans have, completely contrary to Darwinian ‘survival of the fittest’ thinking, managed to somehow become masters of the planet, not by brute force, but simply by our unique ability to communicate information and, more specifically, by our ability infuse information into material substrates in order to create tools and objects that are extremely useful for our defense, our shelter, and for growing and hunting food, etc.. etc..

    What is more interesting still, besides the fact that humans have a unique ability to understand and create (immaterial) information and have come to ‘master the planet’ through this ‘top-down’ infusion of (immaterial) information into material substrates by his (immaterial) mind,,,,

    How Does The World Work: Top-Down or Bottom-Up? – September 29, 2013
    Excerpt: “The mind is not a physical entity, but it certainly is causally effective: proof is the existence of the computer on which you are reading this text. It could not exist if it had not been designed and manufactured according to someone’s plans, thereby proving the causal efficacy of thoughts, which like computer programs and data are not physical entities.”
    http://www.npr.org/sections/13.....-bottom-up

    what is more interesting stil,,, is the fact that, due to advances in science, both the universe and life itself are now found to be ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis.

    Renowned physicist John Wheeler stated “in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe”.

    “it from bit” Every “it”— every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely—even if in some contexts indirectly—from the apparatus-elicited answers to yes-or-no questions, binary choices, bits. “It from bit” symbolizes the idea that every item of the physical world has a bottom—a very deep bottom, in most instances, an immaterial source and explanation, that which we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes-no questions and the registering of equipment—evoked responses, in short all matter and all things physical are information-theoretic in origin and this is a participatory universe.”
    – Princeton University physicist John Wheeler (1911–2008) (Wheeler, John A. (1990), “Information, physics, quantum: The search for links”, in W. Zurek, Complexity, Entropy, and the Physics of Information (Redwood City, California: Addison-Wesley)

    Dr. Vedral, who is a Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and who is a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics, states, “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”

    “The most fundamental definition of reality is not matter or energy, but information–and it is the processing of information that lies at the root of all physical, biological, economic, and social phenomena.”
    Vlatko Vedral – Professor of Physics at the University of Oxford, and CQT (Centre for Quantum Technologies) at the National University of Singapore, and a Fellow of Wolfson College – a recognized leader in the field of quantum mechanics.

    And in the following video at the 48:24 mark, Anton Zeilinger states that “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information” and he goes on to note, at the 49:45 mark, the Theological significance of John 1:1 “In the Beginning was the Word”

    48:24 mark: “It is operationally impossible to separate Reality and Information”
    49:45 mark: “In the Beginning was the Word” John 1:1
    Prof Anton Zeilinger speaks on quantum physics. at UCT – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s3ZPWW5NOrw

    Moreover, besides being foundational to physical reality, information, as Intelligent Design advocates have been pointing out to Darwinists for years, is also found to be ‘infused’ into biological life at a very fundamental level.

    Information Enigma (Where did the information in life come from?) – – Stephen Meyer – Doug Axe – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aA-FcnLsF1g

    etc.. etc.. etc..

    It is hard to imagine a more convincing scientific proof that we are made ‘in the image of God’ than finding both the universe, and life itself, are ‘information theoretic’ in their foundational basis, and that we, of all the creatures on earth, uniquely possess an ability to understand and create information, and, moreover, have come to ‘master the planet’ precisely because of our unique ability infuse information into material substrates.

    Verses

    Genesis 1:26
    And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

    John 1:1-4
    In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made by Him, and without Him was not anything made that was made. In Him was life, and that life was the Light of men.

    Perhaps a more convincing proof that we are made in the image of God could be if God Himself became a man, defeated death on a cross, and then rose from the dead to prove that He was indeed God.
    And that is precisely the claim of Christianity:

    Turin Shroud Hologram Reveals The Words “The Lamb”
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Tmka1l8GAQ

    Quantum Mechanics, Special Relativity, General Relativity and Christianity – video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h4QDy1Soolo

    Verses:

    Colossians 1:15-20
    The Son is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. For in him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things have been created through him and for him. He is before all things, and in him all things hold together. And he is the head of the body, the church; he is the beginning and the firstborn from among the dead, so that in everything he might have the supremacy. For God was pleased to have all his fullness dwell in him, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

  34. 34
    Quaesitor says:

    bornagain77

    Life can be made in God’s image and be profoundly ‘information theoretic’, and there can also be fossils partway between australopithecus and humans. Right? Because these things don’t conflict.

    Otherwise I’m not sure how your recent comments relate to anything I said before that; you seem to be having a conversation with yourself.

  35. 35
    cmow says:

    Goodusername,

    Do you have any evidence that the habiline skulls are larger than your average Australopithecine skull?

    I was pulling data from Britannica and Wikipedia and also the Human Origins Smithsonian site. I was referring to brain case size, in response to Quaesitor, so perhaps was imprecise in my language. Have not looked at skull size in total. (I am enjoying this discussion and doing additional reading, but not an expert enough to have primary source material, but I can try to find specifics if you want.)
    I guess my question – both to you and Quaesitor – is this: If you essentially agree that homo habilis is a mess of species, and may not even be a species at all, then how can you say there is transition going on?
    In other words, you say that there certainly seems to be a transition going on with habilis between ape and human. Not sure we can say that. Not transition, just variation.

    I think you bring a great point in your Skull 5 of Dmanisi example. And if OH7 hadn’t been found in the first place, how would the rest of the habiline fossils been classified?

  36. 36
    goodusername says:

    cmow,

    I was pulling data from Britannica and Wikipedia and also the Human Origins Smithsonian site. I was referring to brain case size, in response to Quaesitor, so perhaps was imprecise in my language.

    Ah, ok, I thought you were trying to say that the only reason that the skulls had larger brains was because they were larger individuals.

    I guess my question – both to you and Quaesitor – is this: If you essentially agree that homo habilis is a mess of species, and may not even be a species at all, then how can you say there is transition going on?

    I’m not sure why you see the dispute as to whether habilis is Australopithecine or Homo as relevant to whether the fossils show a transition or not. The skulls don’t magically disappear because of subjective taxonomic decisions. If the fossils are arbitrarily placed on one side of the dividing line they can be transitionary but not if placed on the other side of the line?
    And isn’t this precisely the sort of controversy that should exit if, in fact, they are transitionary?

    I also don’t see the relevance as to whether habilis is one species or several.
    Splitters see habilis and rudolfensis and two separate species, and lumpers view them as a single species. Only the most extreme of splitters, however – like Tattersall (probably the most notorious splitter in the field) – are in favor of splitting up habilis into multiple species.

    And what little support there was for splitting up habilis has likely been dashed with the Dmanisi find. The discussion now isn’t whether habilis is a single species, or whether habilis and rudolfensis is a single species, but whether habilis, rudolfensis, and erectus are a single species.

    But this is all a side issue to whether the fossil record shows a transition. (Again, if anything, such controversies are what we’d expect when there’s a smooth transition in the record. It would help paleontologists to draw lines if there were convenient “breaks”. Part of paleontology is drawing up lines between different “kinds” of life forms and the more continuous the fossil record, the more arbitrary and subjective such decisions are, and the more disputes there are as to where to draw such lines.)

    In other words, you say that there certainly seems to be a transition going on with habilis between ape and human. Not sure we can say that. Not transition, just variation.

    Well, I would define a transition as variations in a pattern or sequence. As mentioned before, we have Australopithecine fossils, then just as they are disappearing we have the habiline fossils, followed by the appearance of erectus.

    I think you bring a great point in your Skull 5 of Dmanisi example. And if OH7 hadn’t been found in the first place, how would the rest of the habiline fossils been classified?

    I’m not sure what influence OH7 had; in each case they appear to be more human-like than the Australopithecines, but not as human-like as the erectus fossils.

  37. 37
    Quaesitor says:

    cmow

    I guess my question – both to you and Quaesitor – is this: If you essentially agree that homo habilis is a mess of species, and may not even be a species at all, then how can you say there is transition going on?

    goodusername’s comment above reflects my view too.

    I don’t really care whether evolutionists are biased and wrong or what name they give a fossil. There is an apparent sequence in brain size, teeth etc. which anyone can see for themselves.

    I don’t agree with the previous categorical statements “hominid fossils … can all fit in a single foot locker” and “[t]here are no transitional fossils linking us to [australopithecines]” — at the very least there are different points of view on this that should be acknowledged.

Leave a Reply