Ultimate "blind" proof of Darwinian Evolution

[godslanguage]

While I find theistic evolution to make sense for the Universe and all life on Earth, since God had to put it there in the beginning and lay the "ground rules", I am unsure on how our current manifestation of human (H. sapiens) became the species "created in God's image". I don't know how complex our ancestral forms were as in the belief in "Gods" but they probably had some primitive form of religion (as in worshipping the things in nature they couldn't explain).

It is clear from the fossil evidence that there is a clear lineage from Australopithacus to Homo sapiens that outlines the evolution of humans. The problem comes with determining what "human" species is referred to in the Bible. Most people say our species is the only "special" one, but who's to say that H. habilis, H. erectus, or Neanderthals didn't have a belief in a God or gods.

The problem here is how far do want to invoke a God down the tree of life. Perhaps bacteria and fish also had a belief in a God as well? And perhaps they too are created in Gods image since God created evolution and evolution created all of life, the species (whatever those are) that chose to believe in God made God so.

[Gman]

I would find it very hard to say that humans evolved from earlier primitive bipedal hominids... The record is just too incomplete.

http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

[Himantolophus]

The problem here is how far do want to invoke a God down the tree of life. Perhaps bacteria and fish also had a belief in a God as well? And perhaps they too are created in Gods image since God created evolution and evolution created all of life, the species (whatever those are) that chose to believe in God made God so.

It's kind of a stretch to say that bacteria and fish believe in a higher power but that's not to say that certain fellow mammals do not have more complex thoughts. They have shown that elephants and apes show behavior reminiscent to human emotions. Who knows what they think about as they're doing their thing.

I would find it very hard to say that humans evolved from earlier primitive bipedal hominids... The record is just too incomplete.

I don't see how say from a H. erectus there is much of an evolutionary jump to H. sapiens.

Even Australopithecus is transitional between an ape and a human.

not to mention the other species of hominids between these two. The fact that the fossil record for human-like species is so sparse is not evidence against human evolution. I think the biggest challenge for creationists as we find more fossils is to determine just where "human" begins and ape ends, because the line is not obvious. Kind of like the ol' macro vs. micro evolution debate.

[David Blacklock]

Hi Hman,

I think that last guy lives right down the street from me!

DB

[Anita]

Himantolophus,

All the skeletons that have been found are still those of apes and monkeys. And as such many of these species that have been found have gone extinct.

Do the research… NOT ONE of these skeletons remotely indicates a humanoid. They have all been found to be fakes or altered in some way by fraudulent scientists.

Walking upright is not an indication of evolution from monkey to human since many monkeys today walk upright.

[David Blacklock]

Was Neanderthal a monkey?

DB

[Anita]

Was Neanderthal a monkey?

No, Neanderthal was not a monkey, he/she was human.

[Gman]

There is a lot of doubt that Neanderthals could ever be related to humans....

the most accurate date (see note below) for the origin of modern humans indicate that the last common ancestor to modern humans must have existed less than 50,000 years ago (16). Such a recent date left only one potential ancestor for modern humans, that is, Homo neandertalensis (Neanderthals), which lived between 400,000 and 28,000 years ago. Previous anatomical studies had cast doubt on the possibility of Neanderthals being the ancestors of modern humans (23-27). These studies showed differences in Neanderthal's brain case (23) and the presence of an internal nasal margin, a medial swelling of the lateral nasal wall, and a lack of an ossified roof over the lacrimal groove (24-25). None of these features are found in Homo Sapiens, and the last feature is not found in any other terrestrial mammal! A recent analysis of Neanderthal hands has revealed that modern humans and Neanderthals differed markedly in the kind of grip they could use (26). Neanderthals were limited to grips as one has when holding a stone or baseball. Such a grip would have been powerful (you wouldn't want to shake hands with a Neanderthal), but not very dexterous. The anatomy of the Neanderthal's hands would have prevented them from engaging in fine motor skills, such as carving and painting. Another study showed that Neandertals developed much more rapidly than modern humans (or even their own supposed ancestors) (27), further eroding their possible status as mankind's ancestors. In addition, Neanderthals had a huge nasal cavity coupled with a brain size larger than our own. However, with their carnivorous lifestyle, it seems likely that much of their brain might have been devoted to the sense of smell, being the "dog" among the hominids (28).

In brilliantly designed and executed independent studies, scientists have extracted mtDNA from four Neanderthal skeletons; two from Neander Valley in Germany, another from the northern Caucasus near the Black Sea, and the fourth in Vindija Cave, Croatia, and laid to rest any question of whether Neanderthals could have been our ancestors (29-32). The first study examined a 379 base pair Neanderthal mtDNA fragment and compared it with a mtDNA sequence of 986 nucleotide pairs from living humans of diverse ethnic backgrounds. The results (Table 1) showed an enormous 26 nucleotide base pair difference between the Neanderthal and Human mtDNA (a 6.5% difference) (29). In this region of the mtDNA, modern humans differ from one another in an average of eight base pairs, and those differences were completely independent of the 26 observed for the Neanderthal fossil. However, many of the sequence variations found in the Neanderthals were shared in the Chimpanzee. A 357 base pair sequence of mtDNA was examined from the second Neanderthal fossil and was found to vary from modern human sequences at 23 bases (6.4%), nineteen of which were identical to those of the first Neanderthal. The third Neanderthal differed from modern humans by 26 bases, 23 of which matched the first Neanderthal and 20 of which matched the second specimen. The fourth Neandertal differed from modern humans by 23 bases, 22 of which matched the first Neanderthal, 20 of which matched the second specimen and 23 of which matched the third specimen.

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/descent.html

As for homo erectus..

"The fossil record indicates that Homo erectus developed in a fashion similar to great apes — not modern humans, and that they developed from infants to adults rapidly."

Source: http://www.godandscience.org/evolution/sld066.html

[Anita]

I dont believe it, that DNA reading is fishyswa! Not enough overal data.

[Anita]

Even I dont know it all, but if DNA evidence does become conclusive. Its either one or the other - monkey or man.

[David Blacklock]

>>Do the research… NOT ONE of these skeletons remotely indicates a humanoid. They have all been found to be fakes or altered in some way by fraudulent scientists<<

The research clearly shows there are many transitional species. The single fraud that I know of is Piltdown man. Yes, Virginia, there are fraudulent scientists. Most, however, are just doing their jobs like anybody else. I'll make a wild guess that you are not reading legitimate science books. Am I right?

>>Its either one or the other - monkey or man<<

At least in theory, it sounds like you're saying, "I won't (and never will) be swayed by evidence; my mind is made up." Note - at this point, I'm not presenting a case for the evidence, only questioning your mind-set.

BTW, the way science works, nothing is set in stone. No matter how firmly set the theory, it is always subject to refinement, change, or complete overhaul - in the face of fresh conclusive evidence.

DB

[Gman]

BTW, the way science works, nothing is set in stone. No matter how firmly set the theory, it is always subject to refinement, change, or complete overhaul - in the face of fresh conclusive evidence.

DB

Then they probably shouldn't teach darwinian evolution as a fact....

[Himantolophus]

Then they probably shouldn't teach darwinian evolution as a fact....

it's the best theory we've got right now...

All the skeletons that have been found are still those of apes and monkeys. And as such many of these species that have been found have gone extinct.

Oh, I really shouldn't even bother...

So that first skeleton I posted has no resemblance to humans??? What more do you need? The second one is more spe-like but the H. erectus IS humanoid!

Do the research… NOT ONE of these skeletons remotely indicates a humanoid. They have all been found to be fakes or altered in some way by fraudulent scientists.

what's your deintion of "remotely"... So what, there have been like maybe a few fakes and hundreds of reals... Would you like to prove they are all fake? Your precious little Ica Stones were fakes... Your Paluxy footprints were fakes... Your tools in coal were fakes.... you want me to go on with YEC forgeries? YEC is a cesspool of forgery.

Walking upright is not an indication of evolution from monkey to human since many monkeys today walk upright.

Which ones? Waliking upright for a few moments or for a brief sprint is not "walking upright". Please enlighten me to which primate/ape species walks around on 2 legs all the time.

Another thing, the growth of human population indicates that we have only been around for roughly 6,000 years. Do the research for yourself.

YOU do the research. Exponential growth models do not account for human growth patterns. This fallacy has been disproven over and over again. I guess they reproduced so quickly after the flood that there were plenty of people to build the pyramids, or develop Mesopotamia or China or America, all in the span of 100's of years after this flood. AND, in the 100 years after the Flood, they forgot about God and developed "heathen" religions despite this "global Flood" that would have made anyone a believer in God. And the fact that they were all separate races... what hyperevolution caused that?

Looks are deceiving, just because a skull is "slightly" shaped different or shows big brows or wide nose bone does not in any way suggest that it was a monkey since we have people alive today that show these same features like the Australian Aboriginal people.

so you are an expert in morphological taxonomy? The skull and body proportions are not "slightly different". They are transitional.

Which, did you know at one time because of Darwin's theory people were killed just to be dissected because people actually though they were cavemen.

Because of Darwin's theory? Documentation?

Oh and another thing, cavemen were mentioned in the Bible when the Tower of Babel was destroyed... they were living in caves and mountains. Additionally, Job in the Bible also makes mention of cavemen.

Verse? "Men living in caves" is clearly not the same as "cavemen". The term caveman was not in use when the Bible was written so clearly they did not know what a Neanderthal or H. erectus was. The ancient Jews and Arabs often lived in cliff and stone dwellings. Are they cavemen? Nope.

I dont believe it, that DNA reading is fishyswa! Not enough overal data. Like I said earlier the australian aboriginal look like many of the pictures they dipict of cavemen. However today we know they are just the same as the rest of us. Even the homeless man who lives in a cardboard box under the bridge by my house looks like a dipiction of a caveman.

It isn't fishwhatever! DNA science is one of the great emerging fields of science. We are mapping genomes of dozens of species right now. They do DNA studies that trace ancestry and biogeography. Just because you are woefully undereducated on something doesn't mean it is wrong.

Did you also know that real giants lived on the earth (like Goliath). Their bones measure anywhere from 9-10 feet long. These are thought by some to be aliens (or ananuki). Some suggest that they were Antediluvian Hybrids... Though the Bible tells us that they were the offspring of fallen angels.

ignoring the fact that there are indeed giant people around today, gigantism isn't evidence for anything really except random mutations amongst individuals

[Anita]

Boy some of you can be treacherous in this forum.

[zoegirl]

Boy some of you can be treacherous in this forum.

Why, because they actually support their assertions? Get annoyed at baseless assertions? At worst you can bring an accusation of sarcasm.

I firmly stick by what I said. All the skeletons that have been found that suggest a transitional stage between ape and man have been altered in some way. Even Lucys pelvis was found to be sawed/filed to fit together to look somewhat human.

First, source please....show that EVERY skeleton?!??

Scientists cannot really be relied upon to 'tell the truth - the whole truth and nothing but… if you know what I mean.

Oh my...is this really going to come to a showdown of forgeries??!!?? YEC has a history of manipulating data, using poor calculations and "forgetting" to include variables in their equations that produce favorable results.

Just as an intersting research, check out http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html and click on the links on the section below. Even better one: http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/yeclaims.html

Look, the issue is that all humans are prone to sin. ANd it is up to each one of us to examing the data. However, let's not pretend that YEC leaders are pure as the driven snow. THere is a bad history there, enough to warrant hard examination.

Specific Scientific Rebuttals to Young-Earth "Scientific Proofs"
All of the "scientific" evidence for a young earth suffer from one of the following flaws:

Faulty assumptions

Use of faulty data

Avoidance of data that refutes the position

I will be adding more rebuttals as I respond to specific questions. Here is the current list:

Is the Speed of Light Decreasing? - An analysis of the theoretical and observational flaws in the hypothesis that the speed of light was much faster in the past. Actual data and graphs from Microsoft Excel spreadsheet.
Decay of the Earth's Magnetic Field Proves the Earth is Young
Polonium Halos in Primordial Rock Prove the Earth is Young
Not Enough Dust on the Earth or Moon Prove the Earth is Young
The Rings Around Saturn Must be Young
The Slowing of the Earth's Rotation Rate Means the Earth Must be Young
The Human Population is Increasing Too Rapidly
Dinosaur Soft Tissue Found in T. rex Bones - Is it really "fresh" tissue?
Is There Really Scientific Evidence for a Young Earth? by Matthew S. Tiscareno - Includes a long list of claims
Errors in Tired Light Cosmology by Dr. Edward L. Wright (offsite)
A Visit To Mt. St. Helens rebuttal to the idea that Mt. Saint Helens provides evidence for young earth "geology" by John N. Clayton (offsite)

It is like that experiment (the Miller experiment) where by using special equipment they managed to get a few amino acids to link up in the laboratory, then the media shouts to all of us "Scientists have created LIFE in a test tube!"
This was not at all true! What Miller got was a mixture of both left and right amino acids, but in order to create life it has to be all "left" amino acids.

DOn't disagree with much here....although I think you greatly exagerate their exageration. They understood it wasn't life

What Miller got was actually death not life of any sort.

Ummm, let's be specific here. What Miller found were merely organic molecules....not death....not life

DNA is a funny thing and as we all learned during the OJ Simpson trial that it gave DNA a whole new twist of contaminants. That's all I can say really!

Ummm.....what?!?!?!?

It doesn't have to walk around upright ALL THE TIME. Since certain species of monkeys (like chimps) and their skeletons reveal a pelvis similar to be able to walk upright (bipedalism) periodically. Such as the Proboscis monkey and the planetdan.

Actually, no....Their pelvic bones do not allow them to walk upright. THis is simply a poor argument. I hear this all the time from my students and I cringe when I hear it. Just because chimps and other apes and some monkeys (and even dogs!!) can walk on their hindlegs does not invalidatge the significance of the structure of pelvic bones. Just because we can crawl around on all fours, you would not make the argument that our bones are insignificant in our anatomy. If we see a skeleton of a chimplike animal that has a pelvic bone more like ours, it is an ok conclusion that they walked upright.

Does it mean that it is an ancestor? Harder to conclude....DOes it support evolution....not necessarily....Does it disprove GOD??! Absolutely NOT!!