proving evolution as just a "theory"

[Edison Trent]

 

[Jimmy D]

Here are some interesting facts about human fossils. Did you know that the hominid fossils are so guarded that they are virtually beyond all access by the very scientists who study human evolution and bring us most of the literature about it? There is some notion out there that these fossils are all just readily available and thoroughly studied by scientists but it’s not true. Did you know that Paleoanthropology is a science that is quite literally always one step removed from the evidence it is supposed to be based on? Oh sure they have “casts” of the bones with which to study, but did you know that the notion that these “casts” are a true representation of the original fossils is also false? A fact that was proven in 1984 when the American Museum of Natural History in NY decided to have an exhibit of the original fossils. Display cases where made to fit the “true fossils” using casts of the original fossils so that when the originals were brought in they would have special cases to go in. The funny thing was that when the originals where finally brought out for display, none of them fit in their cases. Not a single one. My point here of course is to ask the question, “How can we know what to believe about human evolution when the scientists studying it don’t even have access to the actual evidence?”

Here is another interesting fact. Did you know that almost 4,000 hominid fossils had been discovered by 1976 but yet only 40 were put on display at the exhibit mentioned above in 1984? But oddly the organizer of the event, Ian Tattersalt, was quoted as saying that they had more than half of the entire human fossil record under one roof. That was clearly untrue. A good portion of the very important fossils were never even brought out to be put on display. Why? Today there are over 6,000 hominid fossils, and yet we hear from paleoanthropologists all the time that “there are sparse few.” It seems to me that what they more likely mean is there are sparse few that fit within their evolutionary view.”

Many operate under the misguided notion that we can trust what the scientific community is telling us about human evolution. But how quickly they forget things like all the doctoral dissertations that were written between 1908 to 1953, on the famous Eoanthropus fossil (aka Piltdown man) before as you know it turned out to be a hoax which went undiscovered for more than 45 years. Or about Pithecanthropus, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 who claimed until his death that he had found "the real missing link." But it was discovered that he had kept a big secret for 30 years. In that same dig, in the same area and level he had also found two very fully human skulls which obviously could not have descended from a specimen that existed at the same time. Or about Sinanthropus, who was also claimed to be a missing link by the scientific community, but also kept secret that it better fit within the range of being fully human than a missing link. However they finally released this information after ten other fully human remains were found at the same site. Or what about Homo Habilis announced in 1964 (and widely published in National Geographic) to be the oldest link in human evolution. But actually was assembled from disassociated bone fragments. And then there’s the famous Australopithecus aka “Lucy” found in 1974, and publicized to be the oldest missing human link. However many mainstream scientists today are confident that Lucy is no more than an extinct type of ape. And what about Ramapithecu, also promoted as an ancestor to humans but later found to be only an extinct type of orangutan.

Are we getting the picture yet? My intent here is not to slander mainstream science, but rather to demonstrate that my extreme skepticism of paleoanthropology is very much warranted. I know what you are going to reply to all of this, so allow me to beat you to the punch-line. Your about to say that that is the beauty of science is its ability to correct itself…right? So here’s my question to that common response, “Exactly how many uncorrected errors exist in science today?” The answer of course would be that we haven’t a clue. I mean if we knew something was an error then we would correct it and it would no longer be an uncorrected error…right? So here’s my point. If we have no way to know how many uncorrected errors exist then logically we can’t know if science’s “self-correcting” system is really all that efficient.

Perhaps you are pretty confident when you look at the parade of skulls presented by the scientific community as evidence for human evolution. But I am sorry I have no confidence in them at all. There are three main problems that I can point out, with the fossils and have already demonstrated these problems above. The first is that fossils are often selectively excluded if they do not fit the evolutionary scheme. The second is that some fossils are downgraded and made to appear less human than they actually are. And the third is that some fossils are upgraded to appear more human like. One final thought here on the self-corrective nature of science.

In 1911 the world was presented with Neanderthalensis (aka Neanderthal) as another species of sub-humans. It was published as a brutish beast and became the classic icon for the notion of the cave-man concept that indwells much of the thinking of society today. It was later discovered that these people were every bit as human as you and I are. They were just a little more sturdily built and also several suffered from a disfiguring disease caused by diet. But the thing here is, that the “correction” of this error did not come until 1957, some 44 years after the damage had been done. And people had become so accustom to thinking of them as merely “cave-men” that that view has persistently stuck. The brutish display of the Neanderthals wasn’t even removed from the human evolution display in the Field Museums of Natural History in Chicago until the mid-70’s, almost 20 years after it was known to be wrong. And even then they didn’t totally remove it. They merely moved it to the 2nd floor, along side a huge Brontosaurus, and relabeled it, “An alternate view of Neanderthal.” (So much for self-correction).

The Conspiracy subforum is here Brad.

 

[Jimmy D]

Yes, I can't say that too loudly because I once was one of those "ignorant" Christians. The thing that woke me up to reality was the day I discovered there was not a single example of a finely graduated chain between any two major forms

I'd suggest that you didn't look too hard Brad. Some examples were posted earlier in this very thread....

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

During the Eocene, an Eohippus species (most likely Eohippus angustidens) branched out into various new types of Equidae. Thousands of complete, fossilized skeletons of these animals have been found in the Eocene layers of North American strata.

In the early-to-middle Eocene, Eohippus smoothly transitioned into Orohippus through a gradual series of changes

In response to the changing environment, the then-living species of Equidae also began to change. In the late Eocene, they began developing tougher teeth and becoming slightly larger and leggier, allowing for faster running speeds in open areas, and thus for evading predators in nonwooded areas

In the early Oligocene, Mesohippus was one of the more widespread mammals in North America. It walked on three toes on each of its front and hind feet (the first and fifth toes remained, but were small and not used in walking). The third toe was stronger than the outer ones, and thus more weighted; the fourth front toe was diminished to a vestigial nub.

Mesohippus was slightly larger than Epihippus, about 610 mm (24 in) at the shoulder. Its back was less arched, and its face, snout, and neck were somewhat longer. It had significantly larger cerebral hemispheres, and had a small, shallow depression on its skull called a fossa, which in modern horses is quite detailed.


Miohippus was significantly larger than its predecessors, and its ankle joints had subtly changed. Its facial fossa was larger and deeper, and it also began to show a variable extra crest in its upper cheek teeth, a trait that became a characteristic feature of equine teeth.

Etc, etc until we find the modern horse fossils which date back about 3.5 million years.

........................................

I'm sure we can find a few different examples when you dismiss this example for some reason.

 

[Edison Trent]

I'd suggest that you didn't look too hard Brad. Some examples were posted earlier in this very thread....

Evolution of the horse - Wikipedia

During the Eocene, an Eohippus species (most likely Eohippus angustidens) branched out into various new types of Equidae. Thousands of complete, fossilized skeletons of these animals have been found in the Eocene layers of North American strata.

In the early-to-middle Eocene, Eohippus smoothly transitioned into Orohippus through a gradual series of changes

In response to the changing environment, the then-living species of Equidae also began to change. In the late Eocene, they began developing tougher teeth and becoming slightly larger and leggier, allowing for faster running speeds in open areas, and thus for evading predators in nonwooded areas

In the early Oligocene, Mesohippus was one of the more widespread mammals in North America. It walked on three toes on each of its front and hind feet (the first and fifth toes remained, but were small and not used in walking). The third toe was stronger than the outer ones, and thus more weighted; the fourth front toe was diminished to a vestigial nub.

Mesohippus was slightly larger than Epihippus, about 610 mm (24 in) at the shoulder. Its back was less arched, and its face, snout, and neck were somewhat longer. It had significantly larger cerebral hemispheres, and had a small, shallow depression on its skull called a fossa, which in modern horses is quite detailed.


Miohippus was significantly larger than its predecessors, and its ankle joints had subtly changed. Its facial fossa was larger and deeper, and it also began to show a variable extra crest in its upper cheek teeth, a trait that became a characteristic feature of equine teeth.

Etc, etc until we find the modern horse fossils which date back about 3.5 million years.

........................................

I'm sure we can find a few different examples when you dismiss this example for some reason.

Ahhh the great farmer in the sky, with those huge pruning shears.

 

[Jimmy D]

Here are some interesting facts about human fossils. Did you know that the hominid fossils are so guarded that they are virtually beyond all access by the very scientists who study human evolution and bring us most of the literature about it? There is some notion out there that these fossils are all just readily available and thoroughly studied by scientists but it’s not true. Did you know that Paleoanthropology is a science that is quite literally always one step removed from the evidence it is supposed to be based on? Oh sure they have “casts” of the bones with which to study, but did you know that the notion that these “casts” are a true representation of the original fossils is also false? A fact that was proven in 1984 when the American Museum of Natural History in NY decided to have an exhibit of the original fossils. Display cases where made to fit the “true fossils” using casts of the original fossils so that when the originals were brought in they would have special cases to go in. The funny thing was that when the originals where finally brought out for display, none of them fit in their cases. Not a single one. My point here of course is to ask the question, “How can we know what to believe about human evolution when the scientists studying it don’t even have access to the actual evidence?”

Here is another interesting fact. Did you know that almost 4,000 hominid fossils had been discovered by 1976 but yet only 40 were put on display at the exhibit mentioned above in 1984? But oddly the organizer of the event, Ian Tattersalt, was quoted as saying that they had more than half of the entire human fossil record under one roof. That was clearly untrue. A good portion of the very important fossils were never even brought out to be put on display. Why? Today there are over 6,000 hominid fossils, and yet we hear from paleoanthropologists all the time that “there are sparse few.” It seems to me that what they more likely mean is there are sparse few that fit within their evolutionary view.”

Many operate under the misguided notion that we can trust what the scientific community is telling us about human evolution. But how quickly they forget things like all the doctoral dissertations that were written between 1908 to 1953, on the famous Eoanthropus fossil (aka Piltdown man) before as you know it turned out to be a hoax which went undiscovered for more than 45 years. Or about Pithecanthropus, discovered by Eugene Dubois in 1891 who claimed until his death that he had found "the real missing link." But it was discovered that he had kept a big secret for 30 years. In that same dig, in the same area and level he had also found two very fully human skulls which obviously could not have descended from a specimen that existed at the same time. Or about Sinanthropus, who was also claimed to be a missing link by the scientific community, but also kept secret that it better fit within the range of being fully human than a missing link. However they finally released this information after ten other fully human remains were found at the same site. Or what about Homo Habilis announced in 1964 (and widely published in National Geographic) to be the oldest link in human evolution. But actually was assembled from disassociated bone fragments. And then there’s the famous Australopithecus aka “Lucy” found in 1974, and publicized to be the oldest missing human link. However many mainstream scientists today are confident that Lucy is no more than an extinct type of ape. And what about Ramapithecu, also promoted as an ancestor to humans but later found to be only an extinct type of orangutan.

Are we getting the picture yet? My intent here is not to slander mainstream science, but rather to demonstrate that my extreme skepticism of paleoanthropology is very much warranted. I know what you are going to reply to all of this, so allow me to beat you to the punch-line. Your about to say that that is the beauty of science is its ability to correct itself…right? So here’s my question to that common response, “Exactly how many uncorrected errors exist in science today?” The answer of course would be that we haven’t a clue. I mean if we knew something was an error then we would correct it and it would no longer be an uncorrected error…right? So here’s my point. If we have no way to know how many uncorrected errors exist then logically we can’t know if science’s “self-correcting” system is really all that efficient.

Perhaps you are pretty confident when you look at the parade of skulls presented by the scientific community as evidence for human evolution. But I am sorry I have no confidence in them at all. There are three main problems that I can point out, with the fossils and have already demonstrated these problems above. The first is that fossils are often selectively excluded if they do not fit the evolutionary scheme. The second is that some fossils are downgraded and made to appear less human than they actually are. And the third is that some fossils are upgraded to appear more human like. One final thought here on the self-corrective nature of science.

In 1911 the world was presented with Neanderthalensis (aka Neanderthal) as another species of sub-humans. It was published as a brutish beast and became the classic icon for the notion of the cave-man concept that indwells much of the thinking of society today. It was later discovered that these people were every bit as human as you and I are. They were just a little more sturdily built and also several suffered from a disfiguring disease caused by diet. But the thing here is, that the “correction” of this error did not come until 1957, some 44 years after the damage had been done. And people had become so accustom to thinking of them as merely “cave-men” that that view has persistently stuck. The brutish display of the Neanderthals wasn’t even removed from the human evolution display in the Field Museums of Natural History in Chicago until the mid-70’s, almost 20 years after it was known to be wrong. And even then they didn’t totally remove it. They merely moved it to the 2nd floor, along side a huge Brontosaurus, and relabeled it, “An alternate view of Neanderthal.” (So much for self-correction).

I notice a lot of this is plagiarized from this "article", not cool.

 

[BradB]

And how does dirt, dust form? dust can be a host of things, inside your house it mostly human skin. As well dirt can from a host of things like, rocks, trees, plants, animals, along with alittle water at times.

There are things that have bones, with bone properties mostly of calcium carbonate. do you know what these three things are, hint all three have skin in some shape or form

Well obviously there are different compositions of dirt. But this doesn't change the underlying fact that our bodies are composed of the same basic materials just as the Bible claims.

 

[BradB]

I notice a lot of this is plagiarized from this "article", not cool.

I'm sorry if you think I was intentionally plagerizing. It's actually copied from notes taken from a book entitled Bones of Contention.

I went back and clarified this.

 

[BradB]

I'd suggest that you didn't look too hard Brad. Some examples were posted earlier in this very thread.

Is ten years of looking ...hard enough?
The first link you provided is of a horse becoming...a horse. How is this one form to another transition?

 

[Edison Trent]

Well obviously there are different compositions of dirt. But this doesn't change the underlying fact that our bodies are composed of the same basic materials just as the Bible claims.

Yes and the bible makes the same fact about were that material dirt came from as well. a process like dirt to flesh to bone, each step is a process from the beginning, the earth was void and empty, divided the waters above and below,, dry land appeared then the oceans and sea life even the flying fish spend time flying and swimming.

 

[HitchSlap]

Well obviously there are different compositions of dirt. But this doesn't change the underlying fact that our bodies are composed of the same basic materials just as the Bible claims.

The bible claims we're made of C,H,O,N,P&S? I must've missed that in Sunday school.

 

[HitchSlap]

Yes and the bible makes the same fact about were that material dirt came from as well. a process like dirt to flesh to bone, each step is a process from the beginning, the earth was void and empty, divided the waters above and below,, dry land appeared then the oceans and sea life even the flying fish spend time flying and swimming.

Except this doesn't comport with reality.

 

[HitchSlap]

Is ten years of looking ...hard enough?
The first link you provided is of a horse becoming...a horse. How is this one form to another transition?

Why do you consider Eurohippus to be a horse?

 

[Edison Trent]

Except this doesn't comport with reality.

well in bible creation is taught on a very basic level, can't teach a new born baby to know nuclear fusion, it is of choice.

most everything human scientist learn is from nature, and God is the most greatest scienctist.

 

[HitchSlap]

well in bible creation is taught on a very basic level, can't teach a new born baby to know nuclear fusion, it is of choice.

most everything scientist is from nature, God is the most greatest scienctist.

And Bob is the bestest Builder.

 

[Jimmy D]

Is ten years of looking ...hard enough?
The first link you provided is of a horse becoming...a horse. How is this one form to another transition?

You asked for a finely graded transition, that's exactly what it is.

Eohippus >>>> Horse

Of course that's just one example..... and as predicted, the handwaving begins.

 

[pitabread]

Why not? Evolutionists assume a lot. Apparently they don't when it doesn't fit.

What doesn't fit? All the evidence points to terrestrial origins for whales and dolphins. And the olfactory system is common to mammals and we can even trace the evolutionary origins of various OR genes accordingly: Extreme expansion of the olfactory receptor gene repertoire in African elephants and evolutionary dynamics of orthologous gene groups in 13 placental mammals

What is especially telling is the phylogenetic reconstructions of the history of those genes and how they fall in general line with accepted evolutionary relationships. Thus, the evidence points to the evolution of the olfactory system via common descent and common ancestors having that same system. Either that or it would be the most remarkable and highly improbably example of convergent evolution ever.

What you really should be asking, though, is about the assumption xianghua made about dolphins being created with an olfactory system but losing it via evolutionary change. After all, a designer could just have easily created dolphins without an olfactory system and still inserted those remnant OR genes. How would one distinguish between an organism being created with a functioning system versus one without?

Of course, to answer that you'd need a workable "common design" model with which to test such a hypothesis. A pity you don't have one. Otherwise, you could answered the previous questions I posed about dolphins.

 

[HitchSlap]

You asked for a finely graded transition, that's exactly what it is.

Eohippus >>>> Horse

Of course that's just one example..... and as predicted, the handwaving begins.

I learned a long time ago that creo's aren't interested in evidence. They didn't reach a belief in creo through evidence. Which means that reason won't convince them otherwise. You're banging your head against a wall, here.

 

[pitabread]

I learned a long time ago that creo's aren't interested in evidence.

Agreed. Even the reluctance from creationists to participate in PsychoSarah's triops experiment speaks to a general disinterest in the biological sciences.

 

[tas8831]

I notice a lot of this is plagiarized from this "article", not cool.

So that is three active creationists on this forum that have been caught plagiarizing.

How many 'evilutionists' have done the same?

 

[tas8831]

Well obviously there are different compositions of dirt. But this doesn't change the underlying fact that our bodies are composed of the same basic materials just as the Bible claims.

Dust of the ground on a newly created earth would have been primarily silicates.

What process did God use to transform silicates into lipids, amino acids, etc., and how do you know?