Human evolution Intelligent Design News

Smell the fear: Vid on inaccurate science illustrations rushes through the “ascent of man”

Spread the love

Some kind folk at Digg sent me “15 Inaccuracies Found In Common Science Illustrations,” advising “Guess what? Science is complicated, and a lot of the stuff you learn in school is either simplified or downright wrong.”

Hey, if you learned from Darwin’s schoolbook, it is both. Meanwhile, Inaccuracy #3 “The March of Progress is a Gross Oversimplification” begins at about 2:14, and a transcript of that portion is below:

… this misleading depiction of human evolution. It is called the march of progress. [presenter Michael Stevens holds up a hard-to-see series of small plastic figurines of animals, dumbasses, a guy, and a seeming Darwin figure]. The illustration was done by Rudolph Salinger. It was commissioned by Time–Life books in 1965 for inclusion in its Life Nature Library series, but this is a gross oversimplification, implying that we humans are the final product of millions of years of directed evolution and that nature is not random. We have to talk about world maps now …

And he does. Talk about world maps.

Overall, Stevens rushes through the explanation at #3, looking very, very nervous, and never spelling out the correct state of affairs that is being portrayed inaccurately or in a simplified way.

Is the inaccuracy that we humans are the final product? Millions of years of directed evolution? Nature is not random?

Actually, directed evolution isn’t an inaccuracy, it is a heresy, plain and simple, in the Temple of Tax-Funded Science. Stevens may well have been frightened even to raise the question, hence the hasty, hard-to-follow performance.

Just think, these folk are the heirs of the Enlightenment.

Note: Zalinger achieved enduring fame as an illustrator of dinosaurs.

– O’Leary for News

Follow UD News at Twitter!

8 Replies to “Smell the fear: Vid on inaccurate science illustrations rushes through the “ascent of man”

  1. 1
    bornagain77 says:

    He also rushed through the atom too. So let’s take a closer look:

    Science vs God: Bryan Enderle at TEDxUCDavis – video (how much empty space is in the atom is at the beginning of the video)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sn7YQOzNuSc

    As to the vast amount of empty space in an atom which Enderle talked about in the preceding video, the following video goes a bit further:

    Just how small is an atom? – Jonathan Bergmann – video
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yQP4UJhNn0I

    And although, despite the atom being shown to be somewhere around 99.99999999999999% empty space, it was still presumed, in both the Bryan Enderle video and the Jonathan Bergmann video, that the nucleus and electron of the atom are ‘solid’ material particles. That presumption simply is not so. For anyone who still believes that atoms are composed of little billiard ball type particles (i.e. Reductive Materialism as it was first conceived of by ancient Greeks and was only recently overturned last century), the following images and the last part of the following video will cure you of that false materialistic notion:

    Photographs of atoms, produced by the scanning tunnel microscope
    http://physics.unipune.ernet.i...../image.gif
    http://researcher.watson.ibm.c.....cover7.tif
    http://researcher.watson.ibm.c...../stm15.jpg

    Uncertainty Principle – The ‘Uncertain Non-Particle’ Basis Of Material Reality – video and article
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4109172

    And although the infamous double slit is usually performed on photons, electrons and even atoms are now shown to exhibit wave/particle duality:

    Feynman’s double-slit experiment brought to life – March 13, 2013
    Excerpt:,,,Feynman highlighted that when electrons are fired at the wall one at a time, an interference pattern is still produced.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-03-f.....-life.html

    Double-slit experiment
    Excerpt: In 1999 objects large enough to see under a microscope, buckyball (interlocking carbon atom) molecules (diameter about 0.7 nm, nearly half a million times that of a proton), were found to exhibit wave-like interference.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D.....experiment

  2. 2
    bornagain77 says:

    O’Leary (UD News) recently asked:

    Is information the basic substance of the universe after all? (With video of various ‘fields’) July 23, 2013
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....after-all/

    ,,in the preceding video, the narrator lists these fields ‘co-mingling with one another’:

    1. Magnetic Field
    2. Electric Field
    3. Gravitational Field
    4. Electron Field
    5. Higgs Field
    6. Quark Field
    7. Gluon Field

    in the preceding video the narrator also stated,

    ‘in fact every type of elementary particle has its own field’

    But what are these elementary particle fields made of? Well, both John Archibald Wheeler and Anton Zeilinger hold that these elementary particle fields are composed of information.

    John Wheeler (1911–2008) summarizes his life in physics – February 2014
    Excerpt: “I think of my lifetime in physics as divided into three periods. In the first period, extending from the beginning of my career until the early 1950?s, I was in the grip of the idea that Everything Is Particles. I was looking for ways to build all basic entities – neutrons, protons, mesons, and so on – out of the lightest, most fundamental particles, electrons, and photons.
    I call my second period Everything Is Fields. From the time I fell in love with general relativity and gravitation in 1952 until late in my career, I pursued the vision of a world made of fields, one in which the apparent particles are really manifestations of electric and magnetic fields, gravitational fields, and space-time itself.
    Now I am in the grip of a new vision, that Everything Is Information. The more I have pondered the mystery of the quantum and our strange ability to comprehend this world in which we live, the more I see possible fundamental roles for logic and information as the bedrock of physical theory.”
    – J. A. Wheeler, K. Ford, Geons, Black Hole, & Quantum Foam: A Life in Physics New York W.W. Norton & Co, 1998, pp 63-64.

    And Wheeler’s and Zeilinger’s contention, that reality at its foundation is ‘information theoretic’, is pretty convincing since it is now shown that even ‘material’ atoms can be reduced to quantum information and teleported. In fact, all the ‘material’ atoms and photons of energy of an entire human body can, theoretically, be reduced to quantum information and teleported to another position in the universe:

    Quantum Teleportation of a Human? – video
    https://vimeo.com/75163272

    Of related note, Ms. O’Leary (of UD News) has also wisely noted previously:

    “But information is fundamentally relational”
    &
    “If information underlies the universe, then meaning underlies the universe. Pass it on.”

    Thus, since information is ‘fundamentally relational’ then this ‘relational’ fact provides an answer for why the universe coheres as a whole (see Pastor Joe Boot video ‘Defending The Christian Faith’, Wiker and Witt book “A Meaningful World: How the Arts and Sciences Reveal the Genius of Nature” and, or course, verse John 1:1).

    Of related interest:

    Does the atom have a designer? When science and spirituality meet – LAKHI GOENKA an Engineer – May 2012
    Excerpt: Atoms are machines that enable the physical, electromagnetic (including light), nuclear, chemical, and biological (including life) functioning of the universe. Atoms are a complex assembly of interacting particles that enable the entire functioning of the universe. They are the machine that enables all other machines. It is virtually impossible to explain the structure, complexity, internal dynamics, and resulting functionality of the atom from chance events or through evolutionary mechanisms. The atom is a machine that provides multiple functions, and every machine is the product of intelligence. The atom must have a designer.
    http://www.annarbor.com/news/o.....-designer/

    Delayed time zero in photoemission: New record in time measurement accuracy – June 2010
    Excerpt: The cause of this discrepancy may lie in the complexity of the neon atom, which consists, in addition to the nucleus, of ten electrons. “The computational effort required to model such a many-electron system exceeds the computational capacity of today’s supercomputers,” explains Yakovlev.
    http://www.physorg.com/news196606514.html

    As a sidelight to this, every class of elements that exists on the periodic table of elements is necessary for complex carbon-based life to exist on earth. The three most abundant elements in the human body, Oxygen, Carbon, Hydrogen, ‘just so happen’ to be the most abundant elements in the universe, save for helium which is inert. A truly amazing coincidence that strongly implies ‘the universe had us in mind all along’. Even uranium the last naturally occurring ‘stable’ element on the period table of elements is necessary for life. The heat generated by the decay of uranium is necessary to keep a molten core in the earth for an extended period of time, which is necessary for the magnetic field surrounding the earth, which in turn protects organic life from the harmful charged particles of the sun. As well, uranium decay provides the heat for tectonic activity and the turnover of the earth’s crustal rocks, which is necessary to keep a proper mixture of minerals and nutrients available on the surface of the earth, which is necessary for long term life on earth. (Denton; Nature’s Destiny). These following articles and videos give a bit deeper insight into the crucial role that individual elements play in allowing life:

    “Dr. Michael Denton on Evidence of Fine-Tuning in the Universe” (Remarkable balance of various key elements for life) – podcast
    http://intelligentdesign.podom.....3_59-07_00

    The Place of Life and Man in Nature: Defending the Anthropocentric Thesis – Michael J. Denton – February 25, 2013
    Summary (page 11)
    Many of the properties of the key members of Henderson’s vital ensemble —water, oxygen, CO2, HCO3 —are in several instances fit specifically for warm-blooded, air-breathing organisms such as ourselves. These include the thermal properties of water, its low viscosity, the gaseous nature of oxygen and CO2 at ambient temperatures, the inertness of oxygen at ambient temperatures, and the bicarbonate buffer, with its anomalous pKa value and the elegant means of acid-base regulation it provides for air-breathing organisms. Some of their properties are irrelevant to other classes of organisms or even maladaptive.
    It is very hard to believe there could be a similar suite of fitness for advanced carbon-based life forms. If carbon-based life is all there is, as seems likely, then the design of any active complex terrestrial being would have to closely resemble our own. Indeed the suite of properties of water, oxygen, and CO2 together impose such severe constraints on the design and functioning of the respiratory and cardiovascular systems that their design, even down to the details of capillary and alveolar structure can be inferred from first principles. For complex beings of high metabolic rate, the designs actualized in complex Terran forms are all that can be. There are no alternative physiological designs in the domain of carbon-based life that can achieve the high metabolic activity manifest in man and other higher organisms.
    http://bio-complexity.org/ojs/.....O-C.2013.1

  3. 3
    bornagain77 says:

    As to the deceptive ‘march of man’ icon, it is interesting to note that even though this ‘cartoon’ is known to be severely misleading,,,

    “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),

    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/paleo.....hoddiness/

    ,,the severely misleading icon is still used in some textbooks:

    Icon Of Evolution – Ape To Man – The Ultimate Deception – Jonathan Wells – video
    http://vimeo.com/19080087

    New York Times Inherits the Spin, Republishes Darwinists’ Error-Filled “Answers” to Jonathan Wells’ – 2008
    Excerpt: Biology (1999) tells students that living things have developed “just by chance,” by a roll of the “cosmic dice,” through “the action of random evolutionary forces.” Miller and Levine’s Biology (5th Edition, 2000) asserts that “evolution works without plan or purpose,” so “evolution is random and undirected.” Purves, Sadava, Orians and Heller’s Life: The Science of Biology (6th Edition, 2001) states that “evolution is not directed toward a final goal or state.” 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 as well as interviews with famous Darwinists to persuade students that human beings are merely accidental by-products of purposeless natural processes. Raven and Johnson’s Biology (5th Edition, 1999) depicts a speculative reconstruction of the famous “Lucy” fossil after treating students to an interview with Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, who tells them: “Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.” Campbell, Reece and Mitchell’s Biology (5th Edition, 1999) uses drawings of reconstructed fossil skulls rather than whole animals, and features an interview with Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, who declares: “Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, the apparent design of life”–including human beings, who “are fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species.” Our existence was not planned, however, because natural selection is “totally blind to the future”–the “blind watchmaker.” For further reading, students are referred to Dawkins’s book of that name, in which he writes: “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” (22) http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....10581.html

    As to ‘artistic license’ of Darwinists

    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/Evolu.....thropology

    “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
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....-disorder/

    “There’s nothing so absurd that if you repeat it often enough, people will believe it.”
    William James (1842-1910) The father of modern Psychology

    One can see that ‘artistic license’ for human evolution being played out on the following site.

    10 Transitional Ancestors of Human Evolution by Tyler G., March 18, 2013
    http://listverse.com/2013/03/1.....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

    Are humans the only primates that cry? – 2003
    Excerpt: In sum, if we define crying as tearful sobbing, then we know that humans are the only primates that cry.
    http://www.scientificamerican......only-prima

    Here a leading evolutionary biologist admits to ‘story telling’ instead of relying on evidence:

    A 2004 book by leading evolutionary biologist Ernst Mayr stated that “The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus (Lucy) by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”
    Misrepresentations of the Evidence for Human Evolutionary Origins

  4. 4
    bornagain77 says:

    And ‘historical narrative’ (imaginative story telling) is indeed exactly what evolutionists have done:

    Lucy – The Powersaw Incident – a humorous video showing how biased evolutionists can be with the evidence
    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/4032597

    “Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage
    http://www.geneticarchaeology......lieved.asp

    DeWitt’s digital manipulation of skull 1470 – August 13, 2012
    Excerpt: The skull as presented in the news websites has some significant issues that suggests that the facial reconstruction is seriously off.
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....kull-1470/

    “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

    “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

    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/2.....62101.html

    Contemplating Bill Nye’s 51 skulls slide – February 10, 2014 – with video
    Excerpt: David A. DeWitt, Biology & Chemistry chair at Liberty, knows a thing or two about skulls, and writes to say,
    “This afternoon and evening I tracked down 46 of the 51 skulls that were on the slide Nye showed in the Ken Ham debate (at about 1:05 on the Youtube video).
    This was a challenge because some of them are not very well analyzed, partial skulls, etc. While some of them are well known, others are rarely discussed. I believe only a well-trained anthropologist would have been able to address that slide in the very brief time that it was visible. It was especially confusing because the skulls are in different orientations (including one that is viewed from the bottom and one that is just a jaw). They were not shown with the same scale so the relative sizes are wrong, and they are not grouped or lined up in any clear order. They are mixed up by type of skull and by date, and the only label is the name of the individual skull. I suspect that this was deliberate.,,,”
    “I can only conclude that the sole purpose of showing such a slide was to confuse and obfuscate, not educate.”
    http://www.uncommondescent.com.....lls-slide/

    And yet the fossil record, in reality, apart from ‘story telling’, reveals sudden punctuation and stasis, like the rest of the fossil record, instead of the gradualness that Darwinists dogmatically imagine:

    “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)

    Homo erectus: A Highly Intelligent Seafaring Boatbuilder? – Casey Luskin – August 21, 2012
    Excerpt: As I recently discussed, some scientists even suggest that Homo erectus, Neanderthals, and Homo sapiens were really just the same species. When our genus Homo appears in the fossil record, it does so abruptly, very different from previous forms, and without evolutionary precursors.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....63351.html

    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

    Moreover, ‘hard science’ also puts a damper on all these ‘just so’ stories of Darwinists:

    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

    No Known Hominin Is Common Ancestor of Neanderthals and Modern Humans, Study Suggests – Oct. 21, 2013
    Excerpt: The article, “No known hominin species matches the expected dental morphology of the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans,” relies on fossils of approximately 1,200 molars and premolars from 13 species or types of hominins — humans and human relatives and ancestors. Fossils from the well-known Atapuerca sites have a crucial role in this research, accounting for more than 15 percent of the complete studied fossil collection.,,,
    They conclude with high statistical confidence that none of the hominins usually proposed as a common ancestor, such as Homo heidelbergensis, H. erectus and H. antecessor, is a satisfactory match.
    “None of the species that have been previously suggested as the last common ancestor of Neanderthals and modern humans has a dental morphology that is fully compatible with the expected morphology of this ancestor,” Gómez-Robles said.
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/re.....153202.htm

  5. 5
    bornagain77 says:

    Moreover, the anatomy between Chimps and Humans is far different that what is popularly imagined

    “The molecular similarity between chimpanzees and humans is extraordinary because they differ far more than sibling species in anatomy and way of life. Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of the thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot, and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits (38).
    Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape or size from its human counterpart (38).
    Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course, major differences in posture (see cover picture), mode of locomotion, methods of procuring food, and means of communication. Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families (39). So it appears that molecular and organismal methods of evaluating the chimpanzee human difference yield quite different conclusions (40).”

    King and Wilson went on to suggest that the morphological and behavioral between humans and apes,, must be due to variations in their genomic regulatory systems.
    David Berlinski – The Devil’s Delusion – Page 162&163
    Evolution at Two Levels in Humans and Chimpanzees Mary-Claire King; A. C. Wilson – 1975

    The Red Ape – Cornelius Hunter – August 2009
    Excerpt: “There remains, however, a paradoxical problem lurking within the wealth of DNA data: our morphology and physiology have very little, if anything, uniquely in common with chimpanzees to corroborate a unique common ancestor. Most of the characters we do share with chimpanzees also occur in other primates, and in sexual biology and reproduction we could hardly be more different. It would be an understatement to think of this as an evolutionary puzzle.”
    http://darwins-god.blogspot.co.....d-ape.html

    In fact so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:

    A chimp-pig hybrid origin for humans? – July 3, 2013
    Excerpt: Dr. Eugene McCarthy,, has amassed an impressive body of evidence suggesting that human origins can be best explained by hybridization between pigs and chimpanzees. Extraordinary theories require extraordinary evidence and McCarthy does not disappoint. Rather than relying on genetic sequence comparisons, he instead offers extensive anatomical comparisons, each of which may be individually assailable, but startling when taken together.,,,
    The list of anatomical specializations we may have gained from porcine philandering is too long to detail here. Suffice it to say, similarities in the face, skin and organ microstructure alone is hard to explain away. A short list of differential features, for example, would include, multipyramidal kidney structure, presence of dermal melanocytes, melanoma, absence of a primate baculum (penis bone), surface lipid and carbohydrate composition of cell membranes, vocal cord structure, laryngeal sacs, diverticuli of the fetal stomach, intestinal “valves of Kerkring,” heart chamber symmetry, skin and cranial vasculature and method of cooling, and tooth structure. Other features occasionally seen in humans, like bicornuate uteruses and supernumerary nipples, would also be difficult to incorporate into a purely primate tree.
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-c.....umans.html

    Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins is much harder to shoot down than Darwinists had first supposed it would be:

    Human hybrids: a closer look at the theory and evidence – July 25, 2013
    Excerpt: There was considerable fallout, both positive and negative, from our first story covering the radical pig-chimp hybrid theory put forth by Dr. Eugene McCarthy,,,By and large, those coming out against the theory had surprisingly little science to offer in their sometimes personal attacks against McCarthy.
    ,,,Under the alternative hypothesis (humans are not pig-chimp hybrids), the assumption is that humans and chimpanzees are equally distant from pigs. You would therefore expect chimp traits not seen in humans to be present in pigs at about the same rate as are human traits not found in chimps. However, when he searched the literature for traits that distinguish humans and chimps, and compiled a lengthy list of such traits, he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits. This finding is inconsistent with the possibility that humans are not pig-chimp hybrids, that is, it rejects that hypothesis.,,,
    http://phys.org/news/2013-07-h.....dence.html

    The obvious question is, ‘if such a dubious theory as the pig-chimp hybrid theory can cause such havoc, for what was suppose to be such well established science, then perhaps the Darwinian theory for human origins is not nearly as strong as Darwinists have dogmatically held it to be?’

    Besides the biased presentation of the ‘imaginary’ fossil record, and anatomy, for human evolution, its seems that Darwinists have also, intentionally or not, severely twisted the genetic evidence to try to make a case that humans evolved from some apelike creature:

    Guy Walks Into a Bar and Thinks He’s a Chimpanzee: The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity – Sternberg – 2009
    Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.
    http://www.evolutionnews.org/2.....think.html

    Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70% – by Jeffrey P. Tomkins – February 20, 2013
    Excerpt: For the chimp autosomes, the amount of optimally aligned DNA sequence provided similarities between 66 and 76%, depending on the chromosome. In general, the smaller and more gene-dense the chromosomes, the higher the DNA similarity—although there were several notable exceptions defying this trend. Only 69% of the chimpanzee X chromosome was similar to human and only 43% of the Y chromosome. Genome-wide, only 70% of the chimpanzee DNA was similar to human under the most optimal sequence-slice conditions. While, chimpanzees and humans share many localized protein-coding regions of high similarity, the overall extreme discontinuity between the two genomes defies evolutionary timescales and dogmatic presuppositions about a common ancestor.
    http://www.answersingenesis.or.....chromosome

    Human Origins(?) by Brian Thomas, M.S. – December 20, 2013
    Excerpt: Three major pillars supporting a human-chimp link crashed in 2013.
    1. Genetic similarity (70% instead of 98%)
    2. beta-globin pseudogene (functional instead of leftover junk)
    3. Chromosome 2 fusion site (encodes a functional feature within an important gene instead of a being a fusion site) All three key genetic pillars of human evolution (for Darwinists) turned out to be specious—overstatements based on ignorance of genetic function.
    http://www.icr.org/article/7867/

    Moreover, Dr. Tomkins is working to provide a much more detailed picture of the drastic genetic differences between chimps and man:

    Using ENCODE Data for Human-Chimp DNA Comparisons by Jeffrey Tomkins, Ph.D.*
    Excerpt: In 2013, I published a research paper in which chimpanzee chromosomes were sequentially sliced into different sets of small pieces so that the algorithm could optimally compare them to human chromosomes. In so doing, I found that the chimpanzee genome was only about 70 percent similar to the human genome overall.7
    More research is needed to show specifically how the new wealth of publicly available ENCODE data can be used beyond basic studies of human-chimp DNA similarity—incorporating lincRNAs and vlincRNAs to further highlight human uniqueness. Research using three large datasets produced by the ENCODE project is now underway at ICR for the purpose of addressing these questions. In a concurrent study, I am also comparing human protein-coding regions to those in chimpanzees. In combination, these new analyses will provide a much more detailed picture of what makes humans unique and will further demonstrate we are not evolved apes.
    http://www.icr.org/article/7856/

    I expect Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins to be successful in finding dramatic differences, especially in regards to RNA (genetic regulatory) differences.

    Verse and music:

    Psalm 139:14
    I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
    Marvelous are Your works,
    And that my soul knows very well.

    Alison Krauss-Gillian Welch – I’ll Fly Away – music video
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdRdqp4N3Jw

  6. 6
    ppolish says:

    Why did Jesus refer to Himself as “Son of Man” and not “Son of God”? “Son of Man” does seem more in tune with “ascent of man”.

    Jesus – taking Evolution to the next level:) Looking forward to seeing “Son of God” movie this weekend.

  7. 7
    ppolish says:

    Why did Jesus refer to Himself as “Son of Man” and not “Son of God”? “Son of Man” does seem more in tune with “ascent of man”.

    Jesus – taking Evolution to the next level:) Looking forward to seeing “Son of God” movie this weekend.

  8. 8

    I think you’re being too hard on Stevens. Let’s be grateful that he called out the ascent of man depiction as an inaccuracy. Look, he usually deals with other stuff, probably doesn’t personally know that much about evolution, and doesn’t want to get a bunch of irate evolutionists breathing down his neck. So he mentions it quickly and moves on. I think the nature is “random” comment is more likely to get him in trouble with the evolutionists, though. 🙂

    Let’s welcome the small efforts to point out inaccuracies in the Darwinian depiction, even if they are a bit short on detail.

Leave a Reply