by Charlie Wolcott
“Let us make man in our image.”
Genesis 1:26
“And the Lord formed man from the dust of the earth.”
Genesis 2:7
The Theory of Evolution is rooted in, among other things, the belief the all living creatures today descended from a common ancestor or set of common ancestors. Many of our textbooks today and museum displays will have something like this to show how apes and humans have a common ancestor.
Now, notice how over time, there is supposed to be some kind of break where the apes will split off and where we split off. This is represented by each of the “nodes” where the lines intersect. However, it is amazing how these points are the precise points that Evolution needs to demonstrate their theory to be true, and these are ALSO the precise points where there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
If Evolution were to be true, there would not be such a hard search for any sort of fossil that might be a link. There would be hundreds of thousands of such fossils. Yet, we are having a hard time finding just one that can stand up to intense scrutiny. Here are some fossils facts. Of all the fossils we have, over 95% of them are marine, mostly ocean floor dwellers. Only 0.0025% of all fossils are those of land dwelling vertebrates with more than two bones connected. That concentration of the fossils does not reflect what we should expect after millions of years of Evolution. We should expect more intact fossils and a more even dispersion of fossils between marine and land animals. Not to 50-50, but way closer than 95-5. And I understand that the fossilization process would not readily take place, but we should see something that would reflect what is predicted by Evolution. Yet we do not.
So what about the claimed links in the textbooks? What about Lucy? Or Neanderthals? Or cro magnon? Or Homo Habilis, or A. Africanis? There are lots of claimed links, but these have significant issues.
Neanderthals have already been proven to be human. Check out this revelation from
Science Daily: “Neanderthals were much more like modern humans than had been previously thought, according to a re-examination of finds from one of the most famous palaeolithic sites in Europe by Bristol University archaeologist, Professor Joao Zilhao, and his French colleagues.”
So Neanderthals cannot be a link because they were already fully human. It gets better. Many of these others fossils must be rejected for various reasons. Cro magnon co-existed with Neanderthals, which rules them out as a link because of the time frame. Some fossils like Lucy are not structured like a transition. She was pure monkey. She had curved finger bones and a totally wrong hip structure to be a transition. But Dr. Owen Lovejoy thought it was a problem of the bones being crushed out of shape. So he decided to
“fix” the problem: with a power saw. Others like A. Africanus are out of order. Evolution would have to work “backwards” in this case which totally defeats the purpose. But it still gets better. The museums and scientific journals do a wonderful job at depicting what these transitional fossils would look like. And some are outright fraud.
Now, take a look at this depiction of Lucy from the Living World Exhibit at the St. Louis Zoo. Look at the hand. It has straight bones from knuckle to knuckle. The entire hand is human like. Lucy’s actual finger bones are curved. That’s a monkey, not a humanoid. Look at the eyes. No ape has the white of the eyes visible. Those are human eyes. Look at the facial expression. Ever seen a monkey look like it’s thinking like this? Not in the real world.
Here are Lucy’s feet. Notice how they are perfectly flat, like a human without opposable thumb. Notice how the toe bones are straight from knuckle-to-knuckle. Monkey feet have an opposable thumb and they have curved toe bones. The feet on the display are NOT derived from the fossils.
All of Lucy’s features show it to be monkey, yet they show it to be humanoid. The deception like this is found rampant. It’s all over the place. Be watchful for what is actual science and what is “artist’s depiction.”
The main defense of common ancestry lies in
phylogenetic trees. After all, if Evolution was not true, why would we be able to fit the nested hierarchies and phylogentic trees so perfectly? Here is the main problem. My degree is in computer science and one of the early data structures I learned in my program is how to generate trees and how to fill them. Phylogenetic trees prove one thing and one thing only: that we know how to organize data. It required a predetermined algorithm and presuppositions to fill the tree with the data. There would be no phylogenetic tree without already assuming Evolution to be true and as a result it cannot be used as evidence for Evolution. It can only be used to present what the assumptions already state.
The scientist that discovered Lucy, Donald Johanson, had some very interesting things to say after the fact. And I applaud him for being honest.
“Nobody places a great deal of faith in any human [phylogenetic] tree.”
~Ancestral Passions: The Leakey Families and the Question for Human Beginnings” by V. Morrel (1995).
It is very simple, there are apes and there are humans. There are no ape-humans. There never was. This is exactly what the Bible suggests in how God created
the land animals according to their kinds and how he created man specifically
in His image.
Johanson also reveals the mindset he had when he found Lucy and what is commonly found among Evolutionary scientists.
"I was trying to jam evidence of data into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which on closer inspection the fossils themselves would not sustain…It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was, but the thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence."
~Lucy, the Beginnings of Humankind, 1981 p 357
Where else do we see this mindset? In the textbooks, in the museum displays, in the science magazines? I see it there. There are no links between the apes and humans. And I did not even get into the issues that even if all these proposed links panned out, there are no links to the proposed links. There is no connection between Lucy and H. Habilis or anything else. The scientists will try to lord their knowledge and experience over you with fancy terminology and phraseology, but you keep thinking. Learn the difference between the actual facts and the fancy story telling that surrounds it. When you keep thinking, you will find that the Bible has always been right.
6 comments:
Good post with some excellent points.
Lovejoy took the power saw to molds to what the fossil "should" look like (revealing his preconceptions). While evolutionists claim that there are many transitional forms, none are undisputed, and they desperately cling to a precious few, even bringing some back that had been discredited.
And yes, there is indeed fraud, an example is here about fossil whales in museums.
Phylogenetic trees and cladistics are merely methods of classification, and this has been used in circular reasoning as proof of evolution.
As Duane Gish said, "My ancestors may have hung from their necks, but they never hung from their tails". Well, something close to that.
I couldn't address all the individually claimed links without writing a book on it but suffice to say, not one has panned out. And when you have to manufacture evidence (like Lovejoy) it is obvious you are desperate. But when your paycheck demands results in favor of Evolution that you must produce, it will lead to very questionable behavior because it flat out is not there.
When you look beyond just the lip service, it is obvious said "Christians" are not believing the Bible.
"Now, notice how over time, there is supposed to be some kind of break where the apes will split off and where we split off. This is represented by each of the “nodes” where the lines intersect. However, it is amazing how these points are the precise points that Evolution needs to demonstrate their theory to be true, and these are ALSO the precise points where there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING."
This is because the graphic is something known as a cladogram, meant to show relationships as an educational tool. What you should be asking for is a phylogenetic tree. They vary in level of detail, but attacking the graphic (an extremely simple cladogram), the wrong type of graphic at that, is disingenuous.
"If Evolution were to be true, there would not be such a hard search for any sort of fossil that might be a link. There would be hundreds of thousands of such fossils. Yet, we are having a hard time finding just one that can stand up to intense scrutiny. Here are some fossils facts. Of all the fossils we have, over 95% of them are marine, mostly ocean floor dwellers. Only 0.0025% of all fossils are those of land dwelling vertebrates with more than two bones connected. That concentration of the fossils does not reflect what we should expect after millions of years of Evolution. We should expect more intact fossils and a more even dispersion of fossils between marine and land animals. Not to 50-50, but way closer than 95-5. And I understand that the fossilization process would not readily take place, but we should see something that would reflect what is predicted by Evolution. Yet we do not."
One of the unique things about fossils is that they occur rarely, and because of that, only those species that have existed for long periods of time tend to see fossilization to where they are represented in the fossil record. Species that lived a brief time but contributed to a major branching off will be less numerous and less frequently found. In other cases, the early progenitors of a major transition might be all but wholly absent because they were small and lived in regions where fossilization events were rare (deep jungle)...which is why we know so little about the origins of Pterosaurs and even the earliest ancestors of birds. But nevertheless, we see major transitions and quite easily so, and the point is not to look for every single branching (because fossilization simply doesn't allow you to do that) but the major transition phases between groups, calibrated against their biogeography and anatomy, and in recent periods, their genomes.
Anyway, you're off to more than a bad start here, and I suspect you'll delete or fail to approve my comments because I suspect you're not much for criticism, so I'm not going to waste anymore time on your blog post.
A hit and run spammer, huh, David?
So I understand you approve of teaching students something that's not true nor indicative of what the model actually teaches.... and you want to accuse me of being disingenuous? That's the pot calling the kettle black. If that's not an accurate picture of what Evolution is trying to display...why is it in the textbooks? What you fail to see is that is EXACTLY what is shoved down the throats of the gullible and people like you don't know any better.
One of the unique things about fossils. It requires not time to form, but certain conditions...conditions which the textbooks get wrong (and Evolution for that matter) but really are only possible if the Biblical account is true.
So anyway, your foot is in your mouth and I suspect you won't listen to criticism yourself. If you don't want to waste anymore time here, that's your business. But if you want to persist, be prepared to lose. Evolution has no science, just story telling that doesn't even fit the very evidence it proclaims. But thanks for playing. Go back to school and maybe you can try your hand with the big boys.
///One of the unique things about fossils. It requires not time to form, but certain conditions...conditions which the textbooks get wrong (and Evolution for that matter) but really are only possible if the Biblical account is true. ////
You've addressed none of my criticisms and have issued a new assertion without any evidence. I"m glad we don't live by your assertions in life.
I welcome real responses if you are willing to support them. Otherwise you've got nothing. Your hostility is duly noted. Now try to support something you believe in.
Post a Comment