The Myth of Stone Age Ape Men

[mark kennedy]

It's been a while since I've seen a thread dedicated to fossils and genomics, thought it would be a nice change. We are continuously being inundated with fossils that are supposed to confirm that Chimpanzees and Humans have common ancestry. The strange thing is that with five million years having gone by since the split not one Chimpanzee skull has been unearthed. Were the Chimpanzees not alive today there would be no fossil evidence that they ever existed. The human skull is usually just over 1300cc while a Chimpanzee skull is just over 400cc, which is a pretty big difference. Over the years I have researched the various papers on comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes and the molecular basis for such a dramatic expansion of the human brain from that of apes is completely unknown.

As a matter of fact, changes in brain related genes result in disease and disorder. So where do we get this myth of the Stone Age tool making ape man? Check this guy out:

Louis also wrote "Finding the World's Earliest Man" for the September 1960 issue of National Geographic, estimating the fossil's age to be 600,000 years old. University of California, Berkeley, geochemists Garniss Curtis and Jack Evernden used potassium-argon dating to re-assess the site, finding that Olduvai's Bed I was actually about 1.75 million years old. Such an application of geochronology was unprecedented; OH 5 became the first hominin to be dated by that method. The same process was used for OH 7, the holotype of Homo habilis (handy man). (OH 5 'Olduvai Hominid number 5')
​

This fossil nearly did it for me, notice the crest down the middle, very much like a gorilla. Yet it has many of the features of a gracial skull, not unlike Chimpanzee and Human skulls. Unmistakably, this thing is a transitional. Louis and Mary Leakey would become the celebrated Paleontologists who came up with treasure troves of Hominid fossils and another very interesting assortment of what they claimed to be tools. The theory goes, this was the beginning of a species of Stone Age ape to man transitionals culminating in the emergence of modern humans a couple a hundred thousand years ago.

Be of good cheer my Creationist brethren, there are ways of answering all of this and the answers are staggering in their audacity, motives and scope. So I ask you to bear with me patiently. Let's just get this in focus, just under 2 million years ago a distinctly humanoid looking skull marks a major transition to the modern human brain.

Like I say, this kind of fossil evidence had me reeling and rethinking my theology, I was almost a theistic evolutionist at this point. Then I discovered comparative genomics, a profoundly important category of comparisons of the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. From the time of the publication of the findings of the Human Genome project till the publication of the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome I was searching out everything I could find on the subject. After learning as much as I could on the subject matter I came to realize this apparent transition was a myth.

This was the key finding that sent me back to a young biological earth natural history. I am now convinced that the profound differences between Chimpanzee DNA and Human DNA, particularly with regards to human brain evolution makes the Darwinian philosophy of common ancestry simply untenable:

Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400Myr ago (Pollard et al. Nature Magazine 14 September 2006)
​

So from a time close to the Cambrian explosion, until just under 2 million years ago, this gene only allowed 2 substitutions. Then suddenly is allows 18. I cannot and will not accept such an impossible giant leap based on the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians. Over time, I spent more time on here discussing theology and Biblical expositions, and far less time debating the more atheistic bent of the common discussion boards.

That's some pretty broad subject matter I would think irresistible to theistic evolutionists interested in the science behind modern natural history. Feel free to respond as you see fit and hopefully we can talk a little about fossils and comparative genomics.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Papias]

It's pretty simple. The fossils show a clear and smooth transition from our chimp-like ancestors to modern humans, as this graph shows.

indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. ...... indicating that it originated no more than about 400Myr ago (Pollard et al. Nature Magazine 14 September 2006)

​

So from a time close to the Cambrian explosion, until just under 2 million years ago, this gene only allowed 2 substitutions.
Grace and peace,
Mark

Um, no. You are confusing "no more than" with "no less than". They said "no more than 400 mya". Meaning "less than" - and in the direction of 300 mya. That's not at all close to the Cabrian "explosion", which was from 500 to 540 mya.

I cannot and will not accept such an impossible giant leap based on the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians.

Reality does't care what you will or won't "accept".

No philosophical naturalist assumptions are needed nor used. Did you just want to use those words again? In any case I only need "haeckel" and "flagellum" for a "Bingo" now.

In Christ-

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

It's pretty simple. The fossils show a clear and smooth transition from our chimp-like ancestors to modern humans, as this graph shows.

Again with the scattergrams, you can't learn anything about fossils looking at Christmas lights on a page.

Um, no. You are confusing "no more than" with "no less than". They said "no more than 400 mya". Meaning "less than" - and in the direction of 300 mya. That's not at all close to the Cabrian "explosion", which was from 500 to 540 mya.

I'm not confused, 400 mya is pretty close and you are missing the fact of only 2 substitutions in 3 to 4 hundred million years and then suddenly 18.

Reality does't care what you will or won't "accept".

And obviously you are going to ignore why, at least you are consistent.

No philosophical naturalist assumptions are needed nor used. Did you just want to use those words again? In any case I only need "haeckel" and "flagellum" for a "Bingo" now.

In Christ-

Papias

Amazing, OH5 is perhaps the second most important Hominid fossil in natural history, second only to the Taung Child, and you don't have the slightest interest. You never did learn anything about fossils are genetics and yet you think you a solid evolutionist. You are not, not because I disagree with you but you have never seriously considered the actual evidence. Unlike you, I long considered two options here and made my conclusion based on the actual evidence.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Hoghead1]

It's been a while since I've seen a thread dedicated to fossils and genomics, thought it would be a nice change. We are continuously being inundated with fossils that are supposed to confirm that Chimpanzees and Humans have common ancestry. The strange thing is that with five million years having gone by since the split not one Chimpanzee skull has been unearthed. Were the Chimpanzees not alive today there would be no fossil evidence that they ever existed. The human skull is usually just over 1300cc while a Chimpanzee skull is just over 400cc, which is a pretty big difference. Over the years I have researched the various papers on comparisons between human and chimpanzee genomes and the molecular basis for such a dramatic expansion of the human brain from that of apes is completely unknown.

As a matter of fact, changes in brain related genes result in disease and disorder. So where do we get this myth of the Stone Age tool making ape man? Check this guy out:

Louis also wrote "Finding the World's Earliest Man" for the September 1960 issue of National Geographic, estimating the fossil's age to be 600,000 years old. University of California, Berkeley, geochemists Garniss Curtis and Jack Evernden used potassium-argon dating to re-assess the site, finding that Olduvai's Bed I was actually about 1.75 million years old. Such an application of geochronology was unprecedented; OH 5 became the first hominin to be dated by that method. The same process was used for OH 7, the holotype of Homo habilis (handy man). (OH 5 'Olduvai Hominid number 5')
​

This fossil nearly did it for me, notice the crest down the middle, very much like a gorilla. Yet it has many of the features of a gracial skull, not unlike Chimpanzee and Human skulls. Unmistakably, this thing is a transitional. Louis and Mary Leakey would become the celebrated Paleontologists who came up with treasure troves of Hominid fossils and another very interesting assortment of what they claimed to be tools. The theory goes, this was the beginning of a species of Stone Age ape to man transitionals culminating in the emergence of modern humans a couple a hundred thousand years ago.

Be of good cheer my Creationist brethren, there are ways of answering all of this and the answers are staggering in their audacity, motives and scope. So I ask you to bear with me patiently. Let's just get this in focus, just under 2 million years ago a distinctly humanoid looking skull marks a major transition to the modern human brain.

Like I say, this kind of fossil evidence had me reeling and rethinking my theology, I was almost a theistic evolutionist at this point. Then I discovered comparative genomics, a profoundly important category of comparisons of the genomes of humans and chimpanzees. From the time of the publication of the findings of the Human Genome project till the publication of the Initial Sequence of the Chimpanzee Genome I was searching out everything I could find on the subject. After learning as much as I could on the subject matter I came to realize this apparent transition was a myth.

This was the key finding that sent me back to a young biological earth natural history. I am now convinced that the profound differences between Chimpanzee DNA and Human DNA, particularly with regards to human brain evolution makes the Darwinian philosophy of common ancestry simply untenable:

Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago. No orthologue of HAR1 was detected in the frog (Xenopus tropicalis), any of the available fish genomes (zebrafish, Takifugu and Tetraodon), or in any invertebrate lineage, indicating that it originated no more than about 400Myr ago (Pollard et al. Nature Magazine 14 September 2006)
​

So from a time close to the Cambrian explosion, until just under 2 million years ago, this gene only allowed 2 substitutions. Then suddenly is allows 18. I cannot and will not accept such an impossible giant leap based on the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians. Over time, I spent more time on here discussing theology and Biblical expositions, and far less time debating the more atheistic bent of the common discussion boards.

That's some pretty broad subject matter I would think irresistible to theistic evolutionists interested in the science behind modern natural history. Feel free to respond as you see fit and hopefully we can talk a little about fossils and comparative genomics.

Grace and peace,
Mark

it seems to me your post is rather arrogant. It seems you are claiming that you, as a scientifically untrained lay person, know far more about it than all these scientists, who are flatly wrong, according to your own reckoning.

 

[mark kennedy]

it seems to me your post is rather arrogant. It seems you are claiming that you, as a scientifically untrained lay person, know far more about it than all these scientists, who are flatly wrong, according to your own reckoning.

Which is odd coming from you, so you think siding with secular scientists makes you their peer? That's what gets me about you guys, all you do is hurl insinuations and you think it's instant credibility, it's not. For one thing you have again abandoned the substance of the discussion and almost instantly resorted to personal remarks, it's called an ad hominem fallacy and it means you have neither the means nor the motive to engage.

Sad really, it's a very interesting topic.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[pat34lee]

.

 

[mark kennedy]

.

What exactly was the point of that?

 

[SkyWriting]

it seems to me your post is rather arrogant. It seems you are claiming that you, as a scientifically untrained lay person, know far more about it than all these scientists, who are flatly wrong, according to your own reckoning.

Scientists are usually guessing.
You can't recreate past events.

 

[mark kennedy]

Scientists are usually guessing.
You can't recreate past events.

Actually they are inferring based on what's left from the past. They just don't think Creationists should be allowed to come to different conclusions.

 

[SkyWriting]

Actually they are inferring based on what's left from the past. They just don't think Creationists should be allowed to come to different conclusions.

Inferring means figuring out something that the author doesn't actually say. You can use clues that are in the text, and things from your own mind. Sometimes it's called "reading between the lines," and it adds a lot more meaning to the story.
http://reading.ecb.org/student/inferring/

inferimply / infer
Imply and infer are opposites, like a throw and a catch. Toimply is to hint at something, but to infer is to make an educated guess. The speaker does the implying, and the listener does the inferring. Continue reading...
When you infer, you listen closely to someone and guess at things they mean but haven't actually said. It’s like guessing, but not making wild guesses. You're making deductions — guesses based on logic. Another kind of inferring is more scientific, like when a scientist has part of a dinosaur fossil and can infer what the rest of the dinosaur looked like. When you see the word infer, think "educated guess."
https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/infer

 

[Willtor]

...

So from a time close to the Cambrian explosion, until just under 2 million years ago, this gene only allowed 2 substitutions. Then suddenly is allows 18. I cannot and will not accept such an impossible giant leap based on the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians.

...

Why not? Not clear why this is an impossible giant (or even remotely big) leap.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

Again with the scattergrams, you can't learn anything about fossils looking at Christmas lights on a page.
Mark

Sure you can. But its common for people to resist truths they don't want to perceive. Jesus ran into that a lot, you know.

John 9:41-10:1
41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, "We see,' your sin remains.
NASU

 

[mark kennedy]

Sure you can. But its common for people to resist truths they don't want to perceive. Jesus ran into that a lot, you know.

John 9:41-10:1
41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, "We see,' your sin remains.
NASU

The thing is, I actually have studied the fossils. I enjoy discussing them and evolutionists avoid them like the plague. There is a reason for that.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Willtor]

The thing is, I actually have studied the fossils. I enjoy discussing them and evolutionists avoid them like the plague. There is a reason for that.

Have a nice day
Mark

This is the opposite of what I've seen, here. Admittedly, I haven't been around as much in the last few years, so your approach may have changed since I was. But if this thread is any indication, all you have presented is incredulity -- no data-based analysis at all.

 

[Pats610]

So from a time close to the Cambrian explosion, until just under 2 million years ago, this gene only allowed 2 substitutions. Then suddenly is allows 18. I cannot and will not accept such an impossible giant leap based on the naturalistic assumptions of Darwinians.

Do you have a scientific basis for the rejection?


Grace,

Pats

 

[mark kennedy]

Do you have a scientific basis for the rejection?


Grace,

Pats

That's a complicated question but actually yes, I do.

The 118-bp HAR1 region showed the most dramatically accelerated change (FDR-adjusted P , 0.0005), with an estimated 18 substitutions in the human lineage since the human–chimpanzee ancestor, compared with the expected 0.27 substitutions on the basis of the slow rate of change in this region in other amniotes (Supplementary Notes S3). Only two bases (out of 118) are changed between chimpanzee and chicken, indicating that the region was present and functional in our ancestor at least 310 million years (Myr) ago.(An RNA gene expressed during cortical development evolved rapidly in humans, Nature 2006)
​

In short, no explanation for how this is even conceivable. The fact that it must be assumed is insulting.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

This is the opposite of what I've seen, here. Admittedly, I haven't been around as much in the last few years, so your approach may have changed since I was. But if this thread is any indication, all you have presented is incredulity -- no data-based analysis at all.

Oh I'm not incredulous, I just retain the right to remain unconvinced. About 2mya there is some supposed dramatic change with no explanation for the rise of the human brain and questions about this are met with pure, undiluted dogma and fallacious rhetoric. Once in a while actually looking at the fossil evidence and honestly assessing the comparisons would be refreshing.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Sure you can. But its common for people to resist truths they don't want to perceive. Jesus ran into that a lot, you know.

John 9:41-10:1
41 Jesus said to them, "If you were blind, you would have no sin; but since you say, "We see,' your sin remains.
NASU

Lovely, it's just a bit odd that I spend so much time pouring over the actual evidence while being confronted by those who cannot be bothered. The man born blind, Jesus preaches that he is the light of the world and then proves it by doing what only God can do, this goes to the incarnation, redemption and new birth. This was a miraculous act of God and in spite of the miracle being evident right before them they refused to believe.

It reminds me of this verse:

And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. (Gen.1:3)​

And this one:

Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it. (John 1:3-5)​

As compared to this statement:

all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

The hard hearted unbeliever sees the power of God refuses to believe. A timely verse, something to consider.

For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse. (Rom. 1:20)​

Who is blind to what exactly?

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Willtor]

Oh I'm not incredulous, I just retain the right to remain unconvinced. About 2mya there is some supposed dramatic change with no explanation for the rise of the human brain and questions about this are met with pure, undiluted dogma and fallacious rhetoric. Once in a while actually looking at the fossil evidence and honestly assessing the comparisons would be refreshing.

Have a nice day
Mark

You have that right, of course. But what you're describing is incredulity. You don't like their conclusion, but you haven't presented a reason to oppose it. If you have such a reason, I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[mark kennedy]

You have that right, of course. But what you're describing is incredulity. You don't like their conclusion, but you haven't presented a reason to oppose it. If you have such a reason, I'd be interested to hear it.

Oh but I have and often do. My skepticism is based on actual evidence and what I am confronted with is the a priori assumption of universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I'm not incredulous, I know the evidence and it's not telling us that we evolved from apes, it's demonstrating the differences, especially with regards to the human brain.

It is a myth of epic proportions.

Have a nice day
Mark