Collapse Of The Theory Of Evolution In 20 Questions.

Someone posted a link to this blog with the above title written by a muslim creationist (who ironically uses exactly the same arguments as christian creationists) and I said I could explain line by line why it was inaccurate/dishonest and so I will do so now.  This is the second time writing this because my browser crashed halfway through before (grrrrr…) so yeah.  Oh, and I’m skipping the first half or so of the blog (which is very long) and dealing only with the 20 questions part, though the first half has many false statements and I may (if you want) do a future blog on those too.

“WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT SCIENTIFICALLY VALID?
THE theory of evolution maintains that life on Earth came about as the result of chance and emerged by itself from natural conditions. This theory is not a scientific law or a proven fact.”

Right off the bat this is a strawman of evolution which explains how and why life adapts to it’s environment and does not attempt to explain how life began.  Darwin assumed life was created initially and evolved afterward, and most of the scientists in my part of the world who accept evolution believe in some kind of creator.  Whether life arose naturally, was created by god, was designed by aliens or flew out of the flying spaghetti monster’s rear end is irrelevant to the fact that it does observably evolve and has evidently been doing so for a very long time.

Much of the article is empty rhetoric like “The bases of this theory, which has been disproved by science in every field, are suggestions and propaganda methods consisting of deceptions, falsehood, contradiction, cheating, and sleight of hand”.  I will skip over this kind of diatribe because it has no claims specific enough to refute and is basically just white noise.

“The theory of evolution was put forward as an imaginary hypothesis in the context of the primitive scientific understanding of the nineteenth century, and to this day it has not been backed up by any scientific discovery or experiment.”

It has been backed up by countless discoveries and experiments.  High school students across the world perform evolution experiments as part of their studies, so reliably does life adapt to it’s environment.  Google “evolution experiment” and you will find countless examples.  One of the first was performed in the mid to late 1800s when a scientist heated up several containers of bacteria to figure out what temperature they could not survive at, then he took some of the original bacteria and heated them up in 7 more containers to the same temperature, but this time did it in very gradual increments over 7 years so that many generations would pass and natural selection would have time to occur.  The result were bacteria that showed no signs of distress at the temperatures all the previous bacteria had died – furthermore when he began to lower the temperature of some of the containers the bacteria started dying, they were adapted to the heat but now could not tolerate the temperature they were previously adapted to.  Scientists have observed bacteria adapting to new, synthetic food sources like nylon and becoming resistant to antibiotics.  They have observed new, more infectious strains of countless diseases emerge (why do you think you need a new flu vaccine each year – by the time the flu makes it’s way around to you again it’s not the same virus so your immune system doesn’t recognize it and occasionally a super-flu is produced which kills hundreds of thousands of people).  The claim that there is no experimental evidence of evolution is either grossly ignorant or an outright lie.  There are entire industries that revolve around things like the adaptation of cancer cells to chemo therapy and radiation and the adaptation of insects to pesticides. 

They then say it is impossible for “the first cell” to have arisen by abiogenesis, when what they mean by “the first cell” is modern cells that have been evolving for billions of years and are by definition vastly more complicated than a hypothetical first cell would be.  They also argue that proteins cannot occur by “chance” which if you know anything about chemestry is bunk because it’s actually very hard to discover how chemical compounds can arise given the number and combinations of mechanical forces, pressure ranges, temperatures etc in nature.  There are too many variables to make blanket statements like that.  It took scientists researching the origins of RNA decades to discover the natural mechanism that gives rise to just 2 of it’s 4 chemical components – it turned out to be something as simple as the right combination of temperature, mechanical forces like waves, evaporation and UV radiation from sunlight.  It turns out they would readily, spontaneously occur in vast quantities in nature.  But even if proteins must be artificial it doesn’t necessarily matter because the first cells could easily have simply not had proteins and proteins or some earlier, simpler version of them could have began as an accidental by-product of some other mechanisms within an early (or not so early) cell.

“HOW DOES THE COLLAPSE OF THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION DEMONSTRATE THE TRUTH OF CREATION”

Many of the “questions” are just statements with a question mark.  This section just claims creationism is by default correct (without evidence) because evolution is false.  But it doesn’t work that way.  If you think lightning is the work of thor and I think lightning is the work of satan, the fact that we can’t think of a third possibility and I can allegedly disprove thor does not logically prove my assertion.  There are no “default” answers to questions, and there have been countless times when we had no other explanation for something but a mystical one and we ended up finding out the mystical explanation was wrong.  This form of reasoning is literally “I am ignorant therefore my beliefs are correct”.

Then they move onto the “cambrian explosion” and their argument here is very strange.  They seem to be implying that life was created in the cambrian period and then evolved to it’s various present forms and saying “na na na na, this disproves evolution!” when, if it were true, it would support theistic evolution and would disprove the notion that life was created in it’s present form.  The reality of course is that life did not begin in the cambrian period (and the fossil record has been known for a long time to extend 8 times as far back as the cambrian, or 3.4 billion years ago).  Shortly after the discovery of the cambrian period creationists claimed it was proof of creation because many forms of life appeared to pop into existence fully formed with no predecessors.  Shortly after this however it was discovered that there were many pre-cambrian fossils but that they were all impressions in stone of soft-bodied animals:

Followed by similar, but now hard-bodied creatures like these:

Pre-cambrian fossils have no bones or exoskeletons, ie the parts of creatures that are hard enough to survive fossilization.  So what the cambrian period appears to be is not the emergence of life, but the emergence of traits like bones and exoskeletons in the evolutionary history of life.  The fossil record goes 1) billions of years of single-celled organisms preserved in rocks from different geological ages, 2) impressions of soft-bodied worm, slug and jelly-fish like creatures in stone, 3) actual fossilized bones and exoskeletons.  The cambrian period is the beginning of the third phase, nothing more.

“There are around 35 different phyla of animals, including the Mollusca, which include soft-bodied creatures such as snails and octopuses, or the Nematoda, which include diminutive worms. The most important feature of these phyla is, as we touched on earlier, that they possess totally different physical characteristics.” 

This is just not true.  In taxonomy species with similar characteristics are collectively described, ie cats all share certain characteristics but they also share most of those characteristics with lions, tigers, panthers etc, so all of those dozens of species are classified as felines.  Dogs share most of their characteristics with each other but they also share most of their characteristics with wolves, coyotes, foxes etc, so they are all classified as canines.  And canines and felines all share certain traits with each other like giving live birth, being warm-blooded, having hair as opposed to scales or feathers etc – so felines and and canines (and many other groups) are both classified as mammals.  And mammals, reptiles, birds and dinosaurs share some characteristics like having a spinal cord so they are both considered chordates, etc. 

The evolutionary explanation for this is common ancestry, that all these groups branched off of each other and have the traits they have in common because they commonly inherited them. 


 
[by the way it’s my understanding the two red dots on the right are no longer hypothetical and have been discovered]

This is supported by many things including that the pattern of emergence of every trait we find in nature can be shown to have happened in a logical, chronological order in the fossil record, ie fins occur before bony fins with digits which occur before legs which occur before mammalian wings etc.  If any step in that progression were out of order it would disprove evolution.  There is also a great deal of evidence supporting this in embryology and other aspects of the fossil record which I will go into if anyone asks.

Now what the blog claims is that different groups of animals are completely different from each other, therefore they could not have had a common ancestry and must have (with no logic or evidence) been created.  The problem here is that they actually do share similarities, just on a cellular and genetic level.  Because when multi-cellular life emerged many related groups apparently went in different evolutionary directions before the traits that would define their outward appearance took root.  So for instance spiders “look” totally different than dogs or cats, but if you examine their DNA and cell pathways you will find we share a great deal of our ancestry with their single-celled ancestors.  Humans have something like 25-50% of our DNA in common with bananas for instance, and they’re not even in the same phyla as us.

Sorry that was long.

“INTERESTING SPINES: Hallucigenia: One of the creatures that suddenly emerged in the Cambrian Age. This and many other Cambrian fossils have hard, sharp spines to protect them from attack. One thing that evolutionists cannot account for is how these creatures should have such an effective defense system when there were no predators around. The lack of predators makes it impossible to explain these spines in terms of natural selection”

I did a google search to see what the earliest signs of predators in the fossil record are and found:

“Predation appears to have become a major selection pressure shortly before the Cambrian period – around 550 million years ago – as evidenced by the almost simultaneous development of calcification in animals and algae, and predation-avoiding burrowing. However, predators had been grazing on micro-organisms since at least 1,000 million years ago.”

So again they’re just telling a lie which, if it were true, would be compelling.

“HOW FAR BACK DO TRACES OF MAN GO? WHY DO THESE NOT SUPPORT EVOLUTION?”

This section gives some footprints that are “like” human prints that are 3 million years old as proof against evolution.  The article says:

“They are like modern human footprints. If one were left in the sand of a California beach today, and a four-year old were asked what it was, he would instantly say that somebody had walked there. He wouldn’t be able to tell it from a hundred other prints on the beach, nor would you.”

The problem with this is of course that he would also say these were a human child’s hand prints:

They’re actually racoon tracks.  The notion that a non-expert would mistakenly believe something is not evidence that it’s true.  And to my knowledge the earliest human ancestor primate species that walked upright was nearly twice as old as those tracks, so I say whatever.

They make the same argument lower, talking about a 1.6 million year old skeleton of a young boy:

“The American paleoanthropologist Alan Walker said that he doubted that ‘the average pathologist could tell the difference between the fossil skeleton and that of a modern human.”  This is like saying a non-doctor couldn’t tell if this spot on your x-ray is a tumor or not, so this proves it’s a tumor.  It’s anti-intellectual, pseudoscientific hogwash.  They’re literally saying the opinion of a non-expert trumps the opinion of the experts. 

“Since the beginning of the twentieth century, evolutionists have been portraying the Neanderthals, a vanished human race, as semi-ape creatures.  The above portrayal of Neanderthals was used as evolutionist propaganda for decades. However, since the 1980s this myth has begun to collapse. Both fossil studies and traces of Neanderthal culture have shown that these people were not semi-apes. For example, this 26,000-year-old needle proved that Neanderthals were civilised humans who possessed the ability to sew. As a result of this, evolutionist publications such as National Geographic had to start portraying them as civilised, as in the picture below”

Actually the knuckle-dragger cave-man depiction came from popular culture and is based on satirical cartoons from europe mocking the discovery of neanderthals because one of the first neanderthal skeletons discovered was hunched over – further analysis revealed he was in a state of advanced scoliosis and other crippling ailments when he died (at an advanced age) which actually proved the reverse, that he was cared for for many years before he died.  The way they tell it is misleading, and the “depiction” they give is this:

I fail to see how that supports their claim.

Furthermore they are not “semi-ape” creatures, humans and neanderthals are both apes in the same way that cats and lions and tigers are all felines.  It is a collective group all our species belong do the same way we are all mammals etc.  Ape means the same thing as “primate”.

“Despite 150 years of propagandistic evolutionist research into the origin of man, the fossils discovered show that the first human beings suddenly appeared on the Earth, with no “apelike ancestor.”

All human beings are “ape-like”, here are a series of primate skulls, the first is a modern chimpanzee and the others are various human ancestors and off-shoots:

Take a good hard look at these skulls and tell me there’s no similarities between us and other species and no plausible missing links have been found.

Honestly.

“4 WHY IS THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION NOT THE “BASIS OF BIOLOGY”?
ONE claim that is frequently repeated by evolutionists is the lie that the theory of evolution is the basis of biology… Those who put forward this claim suggest that biology could not develop, or even exist, without the theory of evolution.”

This is just a mus-characterization of a common statement, that evolution is the central theory of biology without which not much in the life sciences would make sense, and this is true.  The field of biology existed before evolution science came along so clearly this is not what scientists are saying.

They then equate evolution supporters with communist dictators because they supposedly burned books that contradicted their worldview.  What disagreeing in a free and pluralistic society has to do with censorship in a dictatorship I have no idea.  It’s worth mentioning that the nazis burned books, including darwin’s works which are listed (along with any books that agree with his findings) among the books banned by the nazis.  Does this disprove creationism?  No, and it would be a cheap shot to try to imply that it did.

“WHY IS THE EXISTENCE OF DIFFERENT RACES NOT EVIDENCE FOR EVOLUTION?”

This section is again weird.  It says that biological “variation” is strictly caused by recombination of the same genes (ignoring the role of genetic mutations), and claiming that blacks, whites, asians etc have the traits they do because “Geographical isolation that had happened over human history has led to an atmosphere where different physical features came together in different groups. Over a long period of time, this led to different groups having different bone structures, skin colour, height, and skull volumes. This eventually led to the different races”.

This makes no sense, they seem to be saying that the human race was modified by it’s environment, ie evolved to have separate characteristics, but without using the word evolved or giving a plausible mechanism.  What actually happened is that variations are caused by mutations and genetic recombination which make everybody different from each other in lots of little ways and over many generations the members of every species with the most useful genetic variations (like those that result in a stronger immune system or, in the case of ethnicity, increased skin pigment which blocks UV rays in areas with more intense sunlight) the members with those variations will tend to pass their genes to future generations at a greater rate simply because they will tend to survive longer and have more offspring.  So the best genes become more common in the gene pool and the worst genes (birth defects etc) gradually get weeded out.

Anyway, this is where the article stops, apparently at “question” (more like declarative statement) 5.  So I don’t know where the rest is.

I might do the first half later if you all aren’t bored to tears.  Feel free to ask questions or what have you.

About agnophilo

Nerd.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

23 Responses to Collapse Of The Theory Of Evolution In 20 Questions.

  1. I see no irony whatsoever in fundamentalist Islam and Christianity having similar views on evolution.

  2. ctaretz says:

    Wow, thanks for the teaching, I learned a lot from this post.

  3. TheSutraDude says:

    I wish I had time to read it all right now. I’ll try to come back to it later but I’ll rec. I read the first few paragraphs. I’m confident I agree with you. 

  4. Dang, I always thought the fundamentalist Christians cornered the market on creationism.

  5. agnophilo says:

    @tendollar4ways – They are cousins after all.  And their less reputable evangelists are both vacuum cleaners for credible sounding falsehoods.@ctaretz – Have I changed your mind about anything?  Or given you reason to do more research?  By the way please look up actual science info, not creationism websites which tend to misinform rather than inform.@TheSutraDude – Thanks, and I’m confident you’d agree too.@we_deny_everything – Nope, there’s all kinds of creationism and fundamentalism unfortunately.

  6. ctaretz says:

    @agnophilo – In my post, I mentioned that I only read the couple of links about Jesus that were posted on my wall… I didn’t read any of the ones about evolution. I was just simply stating that there was nothing vindictive in the messages this said “religious spammer” spammed me with.    Your post was the first I’ve read about the evolution, gene similarities, and the dismantling of the belief that Neanderthal Men were monkey like and not human like. There was a lot you said in this post that opened my eyes. I wouldn’t have a problem studying this subject more because I believe that there is a lot of proof science has revealed, in regards to the living and how they came about.    I will say this though, I believe in God because when comes to the crazy stuff life sets in front of me, the stuff that I can’t control, I can pray, and talk about it, I can let off steam, and hope that things will change with the faith I have, as well as the change that time brings.     I do appreciate this post and am grateful for your efforts in shedding some light on the inaccuracies/ignorance religion can spew from its scriptures. That’s why it’s important to keep things spiritual and keep the religion (man made) out of the equation.  

  7. I am a vegan, but I’m pretty sure if Trilobites weren’t extinct I’d hit them with bats.

  8. PPhilip says:

    The Babylonians had one of the earliest written record. So early that some historians suppose a lot of the stories in the Bible had origins from the Babylonians.I was trying to google the myth of the Pithcarn man (whose bones consisted of other animals to make a hoax of earlyman) and came up with this interesting tidbit about early mankind on the road to civilization: http://mbtimetraveler.com/2012/08/11/oannes-real-teacher-of-early-man-or-a-myth/

  9. carlo says:

    Big mystery: Life. No answer yet.Humans are very similar to apes, aren’t they?  If they are similar, they must be related, and the means having some kind of same ancestor.Perhaps the theory of evolution should change the name and use “Theory of change” like Obama .Sorry for the rumblings.Have a good day.

  10. eshunt says:

    I know that many Christians do not believe that the concepts of evolutionism are entirely wrong. I don’t know any that believe that man evolved from apes, but some of us are aware that laboratory experiments can create basic organic substances from non-organic material I’m not up on it, but I did read about it and it is certainly entirely acceptable to me that it can be done. I don’t keep up on it because there are numerous false reporting and false conclusions that cloud the science for a lay person. However, after many years of investigation, I concluded that the evidence for a transitory man is non-existent. There are a few reports about other species that are still on the books. No one should rule out the remote possibilities for a conclusive find yet, but the chances of this happening are lower than winning the Powerball.The basics of biology cannot demonstrate natural selection. So, teaching natural selection in introductory biology makes no sense except as a footnote.There are many theories about racial differences. Some think that Sumerian text reveal that the answer is that alien beings intervened and used DNA manipulations. Some believe that God created the racial differences. Some believe that there was a evolutionary process. No one has the evidence that science requires (in the laboratory) to conclusively state that it racial difference our because of a particular process. Personally, I don’t care why there are different races. I know not much about pre-human ages. So, I’ll pass on anything dating back to those times. In Jesus, I await. If you want help to gain entry into Heaven, I am here for you. 

  11. agnophilo says:

    @eshunt@revelife – “I know that many Christians do not believe that the concepts of evolutionism are entirely wrong.” There’s no such thing as “evolutionism”.”I don’t know any that believe that man evolved from apes, but some of us are aware that laboratory experiments can create basic organic substances from non-organic material I’m not up on it, but I did read about it and it is certainly entirely acceptable to me that it can be done. “Those experiments have nothing to do with evolution, they’re research into abiogenesis, the beginning of life – evolution is how life changes once it already exists, which is a separate question.  And human beings are apes right now the same way we’re mammals right now.  Ape doesn’t refer to any particular species, it’s a term like mammal or reptile that refers to an entire family of species which includes humans.”I don’t keep up on it because there are numerous false reporting and false conclusions that cloud the science for a lay person.” Yes, creationist websites are full of them.  People on the evolution side of the debate don’t have to lie because the experts overwhelmingly accept evolution.  Even the christian biologists accept it around 99.9% of the time.”However, after many years of investigation, I concluded that the evidence for a transitory man is non-existent.” I assume you mean transitional, and my avatar is an example of a transitional fossil – look closely at it – it’s not a human skull.  Here are some more.  And some more.”There are a few reports about other species that are still on the books. No one should rule out the remote possibilities for a conclusive find yet, but the chances of this happening are lower than winning the Powerball.”What are you referring to?  We’ve found plenty of intermediate forms.  The odds are 100%.”The basics of biology cannot demonstrate natural selection. So, teaching natural selection in introductory biology makes no sense except as a footnote.”High school students do natural selection experiments in their studies and watch insects adapt to pesticides.  Evolution has been experimentally observed since the 1800’s.  There are entire industries built around making cancer treatments that cancer cells can’t adapt to (they rapidly adapt to chemo and radiation) and anti-viral drugs viruses can’t adapt to and new antibiotics to deal with bacteria that have developed antibiotic resistances.  If you think evolution is hypothetical and doesn’t happen in real life you have been grossly misinformed.”There are many theories about racial differences. Some think that Sumerian text reveal that the answer is that alien beings intervened and used DNA manipulations. Some believe that God created the racial differences. Some believe that there was a evolutionary process. No one has the evidence that science requires (in the laboratory) to conclusively state that it racial difference our because of a particular process. Personally, I don’t care why there are different races.”You don’t know much about science or how it works or what evidence for this stuff is out there, I wouldn’t be throwing around claims about it if I were you.  And yes there is evidence that all “races” come from a common ancestor and that natural selection is occurring in human beings. Mainly that we can find beneficial mutations in certain populations and estimate based on how far that mutated gene has spread throughout the gene pool when that mutation occurred.”I know not much about pre-human ages. So, I’ll pass on anything dating back to those times.”Not knowing much about something hasn’t stopped you from giving your opinion so far, why stop now? “In Jesus, I await. If you want help to gain entry into Heaven, I am here for you.”If jesus would send me to hell for honestly not being convinced of some claims people made about him thousands of years ago, he’s not all he’s cracked up to be.

  12. eshunt says:

    How nice of you to reply. Your avatar is an example alright. “You don’t know much about science or how it works or what evidence for this stuff is out there, I wouldn’t be throwing around claims about it if I were you.” I don’t recall saying I have any background in science. The “evidence” is lacking in any of the “theories” that are mentioned. There probably are other theories. I don’t recall reading that any other theory is based on scientific evidence. The “evidence” of a common ancestor proves nothing. Maybe the aliens, God, or maybe you are a hologram… who cares is all I profess.God wants you in heaven my friend. I never said Jesus is sending anybody to hell. evolution, evolutionistic, evolutional, whatever… it is all stories. I don’t think pictures of skulls proves anything about human evolution.

  13. agnophilo says:

    @eshunt@revelife – Science operates by tests, by figuring out a way to test a hypothesis in such a way that if your test turns out one way it supports it and if it turns out another way it falsifies it.  Scientists didn’t dig up some bones and then dream up evolution to explain them, the theory of evolution allows scientists to predict what must be in the fossil record if evolution is correct, then go out and find the fossils.  This has been done countless times not just with human beings but countless other lineages, every single time is a test of the theory.You say you dismiss evolution because there is no evidence of intermediate forms for human fossils – then I give you lots of evidence and you dismiss it despite the evidence.  That is dishonest.  You made up your mind and won’t change it no matter what the evidence is.And are you saying you don’t believe in hell?

  14. eshunt says:

    Oh, well actually, I did look at the photos. Did I miss the missing link? My eyesight isn’t good. Yeah, I’m not a scientist. Still, it is easy to find top scientist and read about findings in evolution. Nobody that claims that they’ve found the human missing link got past the scrutiny; so far as I know — up until now, nobody said even that I am wrong in that direction. Am I wrong about that?I thought you’d point out microscopic organisms since there is evidence that virus and bacteria change — but that is due to host conditions I’d say and you’d say sure — environment – natural selection… and I’d say, where is the science journals that got past all of the brilliant top paid science people… you’d do what I don’t know.Sure there probably is an awful place like HELL… I’m not bound to find it. You don’t have to go there. Do you want to find Heaven? Do you enjoy my visits?

  15. agnophilo says:

    @eshunt@revelife – “Oh, well actually, I did look at the photos. Did I miss the missing link? My eyesight isn’t good.” No, you missed about two dozen “links” that haven’t been missing for many years.  You say you looked at the evidence when clearly you didn’t actually look at it.The idea that there is a “missing link” (a term with no scientific definition) is a creationist fallacy.  Every time a new intermediate form is discovered between two species creationists simply demand to see the intermediate forms between those two – then when those are discovered they demand to see the intermediates between those two, etc.  Like so.  We could find a thousand “missing links” and they’d just turn a blind eye dishonestly, like you are now.”Yeah, I’m not a scientist. Still, it is easy to find top scientist and read about findings in evolution. Nobody that claims that they’ve found the human missing link got past the scrutiny; so far as I know — up until now, nobody said even that I am wrong in that direction. Am I wrong about that?”Yes, you are.  I gave you pictures of plenty of “missing” links and you dismissed them without even examining them.  Why don’t you go back and look at the photographs of those fossils I gave you that you claim nobody’s ever found.  And please provide evidence that “top scientists” reject evolution.”I thought you’d point out microscopic organisms since there is evidence that virus and bacteria change — but that is due to host conditions I’d say and you’d say sure — environment – natural selection… and I’d say, where is the science journals that got past all of the brilliant top paid science people… you’d do what I don’t know.”That isn’t a coherent statement.”Sure there probably is an awful place like HELL…” I’ve never seen any reason to think there is.”I’m not bound to find it. You don’t have to go there. Do you want to find Heaven?” How would I know?  Never been there.”Do you enjoy my visits?”I would if you were honest in your dealings with me.

  16. eshunt says:

    ok… I’ll see if I can glean anything form those photos — do you have any text regarding those?Those gap charts make sense to me. I mean honest. … I’ll be back. I have some other than virtual stuff in the real world to do… with my son and his dog. Night now.  oh, wait… so what is your avatar demonstrating?

  17. agnophilo says:

    @eshunt@revelife – My avatar (minus the photoshopped santa cap) is a non-human but human-like fossil skull.  It’s one of many species that used to exist but doesn’t anymore.  And I could look up the names of all the species but what would be the point?  You’d just deny any of them were the “missing link”.

  18. eshunt says:

    Ok… you might have helped me a bit more than you did about those skulls to find articles… but ok… I’ve read parts of a lot of text that didn’t even apply and also what did. I don’t find any evidence of fossils. However, I did find in your favor that dna evidence includes that Neandertal nuclear DNA makes up perhaps 2 to 3 % of human dna of non-African humans. Denisovan dna is found to contribute to 5 % in Melanesians. Now, while that seems hopeful that dna evolved, unfortunately the reason seems to be that there was inter species mixing of it up… some humans apparently like Neandethals or Denisovans. I did also find some history of these skulls. No one seems to present any useful facts that relates the fossils to humans. Fossils in fact seem less preferred to dna evidence. Now, certainly, I am not the scientist as I say. However, I did some work and I am wondering what you make of it. I’d recommend going to the aliens theory. It is much more likely. However, in the end there is only one true reason why humans are here. God created people.You may at any time believe in Him and take up the life of that belief by way of Jesus, the Christ.What is your science background if I may ask?

  19. agnophilo says:

    @eshunt@revelife – In order to understand what makes a fossil transitional to begin with you’d need to understand a fair amount about animal physiology, taxonomy etc.  Otherwise you won’t even understand what the term “transitional form” means.  But if you can’t look at the pictures I linked to and see that they are gradually changing over time and tell me you can’t find any evidence of transitional forms in humans, what could I possibly give you that you wouldn’t also ignore?  I could give you a thousand pictures of actual fossils and you’d say “what fossils?  I don’t see any fossils”.And I have no science background, I’m just a nerd.

  20. eshunt says:

    well, what you say is true. however, as for proof of that the human genome evolved, we still don’t have that. I certainly se that there may be evolution from looking at your skulls and from what I read. That is not the smoking gun.DNA evidence would be best. I’d not debate that if there were any. As I found, some people do debate that Neandethal or Denisovan nuclear DNA contribute to certain human’s DNA. I do not. As I say, I’ll give you that point (that I did give you–you didn’t note it).  Unfortunately, for the theories that this is due to evolution is that the DNA occurs in proportions and from a time when both species inhabited geographical areas together and due to inter-species offspring. They even have a DNA test. You can find out if you have pre-human ancestors… but not that you evolved from primates. Now, you may on the other hand be able eventually to show that primate evolution did occur… probably never finding the exact circumstances.Science must by ways of providing proof, duplicate theories in actual I the lab/field replication of the circumstances/experiment. Have I got that right?I hope that we can have future discussions if you find “new” evidence becomes available; or if I do, I’ll let you know.Since you don’t seem interested in the alien theory, all that remains is to confess your worldly ways and accept Jesus the Christ. You are fortunate to be given invitations from your brothers and sisters. God bless you my friend.

  21. agnophilo says:

    @eshunt@revelife – There is plenty of genetic evidence, which is why virtually all geneticists accept that human beings not only evolved, but are still evolving right now.  Just some of that evidence is vestigial (left-over) traits in humans, and here is some more evidence of human evolution.  As far as experimental evidence goes, not all experiments require you to make the event described in the theory occur again, which is good because that is often impossible.  For instance you don’t need to go back in time to witness someone’s birth or make their parents give birth to that person a second time in order to test the hypothesis that they are the child of x and y parents.  All that is required is that you make a prediction and find some test that has the potential to falsify it, that constitutes experimental evidence. Here is an experimental test of one of the predictions of evolution specifically as it relates to human DNA, as explained by a respected christian biologist and author of the book “finding darwin’s god”.The creationist websites that claim there is no evidence supporting evolution are simply lying.  There’s tons and tons of evidence in multiple fields of study.As far as this:”Since you don’t seem interested in the alien theory, all that remains is to confess your worldly ways and accept Jesus the Christ.”I was an atheist before I even knew what evolution was – the christian school I attended growing up didn’t teach me about any of this.  I rejected the idea of a god as an explanation because it was a bad explanation – even if we didn’t know anything about the origins of life or the universe invoking a god wouldn’t shed any light on the matter.  And even if I granted for the sake of argument that there must be some kind of god, there’s no reason to suppose it’s the god of the bible or the god of any religion.  Or ten gods or aliens or something we don’t even have a word for.

  22. eshunt says:

    Thank you. I will take some time and read the pages that you linked.Perhaps we may discuss how God is, in fact, the source of the universe. In that area, I am still not a scientist, but, like you, I do like to know from facts whatever I choose to beleive. I would appreciate sharing with you about the origins of a universe as it occurred (according to facts). Together we may discuss the evidence or as you assume, the lack of evidence. If you’ll agree, I will begin a new blog of a neutral name and let you know about it. Feel free to state any conditions that you may warrant necessary. I’ll do my best to make this enjoyable. This will be a way to continue our meaningful friendship and fasten ourselves firmly in the facts of what we beleive, I think. What do you say? 

  23. agnophilo says:

    @eshunt@revelife – I’m not sure what you’re proposing exactly as far as a new blog or friendship, but as for the origins of the universe nobody knows exactly how the universe began, regardless of whether it was created or arose naturally somehow.The most recent advance in that area is vacuum energy experiments where scientists discovered that a vacuum (near total absence of matter) is actually unstable and appears to make matter and measurable energy “bubble” into and out of existence which can demonstrably effect physical objects in the vacuum.  So hypothetically if you had a vacuum the size of the universe could spontaneously generate vast amounts of energy and particles, maybe enough to start a big-bang type expansion.  Now why this happens we don’t know, but it’s an interesting discovery.Either way invoking a god doesn’t give us any new information and just begs the question what is god and where did god come from?  And then we still don’t know how god supposedly created the universe.Invoking god to explain the universe is like invoking zeus to explain lightning.  Did people who believed in zeus understand what lightning was any better than people who didn’t believe in zeus?Attributing something to a magical being and understanding it are not the same thing.

Speak yer mind.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s