Evolution? The most GDed ridiculous Fing thing ever to have been imagined

originally posted by: whereislogic

*: which lately don't resemble trees all that much anymore, but that's another story involving putting organisms on sidelines because of a lack of evidence of being part of a specific transition between 2 other kinds of organisms. Not even something they can at least sell as supposed "evidence", as tried earlier for ambolucetus in the whale evolution storyline, then abandoned and put on a sideline rather than in between sinonyx and rhodocetus as supposed evidence for the whale evolution storyline as a transitional fossil. See whale evolution video from earlier.

It's funny looking at old debates and seeing guys like Kenneth Miller use a picture of ambulocetus natans as an example of a transitional species as evidence for evolution and even as a sort of 'gotcha' moment. Starting at 5:35:

Once again the refutation of this particular storyline involving ambulocetus:

Remember, the moment you put it (ambulocetus) on a sideline, you lose it as evidence for the evolutionary transition between the 2 animals you previously were talking about (as in the chart in the debate further above). They don't seem to want to clarify that to their flocks as they draw and re-draw their charts and diagrams with the convenient 'sideline' trick.

'Oops, we've been caught in our arguments from speculation built upon convenient ignorance of the crucial missing information, sometimes by new emerging evidence removing that ignorance, let's just put it on a sideline.' (the 'sideline' trick, using Gingerich's terminology)

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: tanstaafl

Well it looks like Nature didn't care what you think can or can't happen. It did.
Not saying that each bigger step didn't require some 'additional encouragement'.

'Additional encouragement' is the only thing that could explain one species mutating into another.

There are stories about the possibility of alien genetic manipulation in our ancient past to mutate neanderthal into homo sapiens.

Maybe - just maybe - such genetic manipulation could eventually produce such a result, MAYBE. But 'natural selection? Trillions of identical RANDOM variations occurring SIMULTANEOUSLY in a large number of the same species, enough to result in becoming a permanent change to the entire species?

Again, that is just as (if not more) preposterous as the story of Creation.

Here is what you said.

Please link to any reputable source saying you need trillions of random changes occurring simultaneously in a large number of the same species.

originally posted by: iamthevirus
a reply to: Helious

We didn't know then that Humans and Neanderthal were different species.

From one of the earlier linked articles:

QUESTION 4: Has All Life Descended From a Common Ancestor?

DETERMINING INTELLIGENCE BY BRAIN SIZE

...

What, though, about the humanlike fossils of the so-called Neanderthals, often portrayed as proof that a type of ape-man existed? Researchers are beginning to alter their view of what these actually were. In 2009, Milford H. Wolpoff wrote in the American Journal of Physical Anthropology that “Neandertals may have been a true human race.”50 [50: American Journal of Physical Anthropology, “How Neandertals Inform Human Variation,” by Milford H. Wolpoff, 2009, p. 91.

Then you can no longer use those fossils named as Neanderthals (as if a different species name was ever warranted given the already known possible variation within humankind) as evidence of a transition between some mysteriously unspecified apelike ancestor and humans.

Were Neanderthals Like Us?

“The long-held view that Neanderthals were inferior to Homo sapiens is changing as, one by one, capabilities thought unique to us have been linked to them,” says New Scientist. Recent discoveries indicate that Neanderthals built shelters and hearths, controlled fire, wore clothes, cooked food, made tools, and created glue to attach spear points to their shafts. There is also evidence that they cared for sick individuals, wore symbolic ornaments, and buried their dead. According to Erik Trinkaus, professor of physical anthropology at Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri, U.S.A., “Neanderthals were people, and they probably had the same range of mental abilities we do.”

“people”, i.e. human beings, humans. No need for fancy terminology to confuse the matter. Source was: Watching the World (Awake!—2011)

Talking about fancy terminology, let's take a stroll down memory lane for some past failures of supposed evidence of “ape-men” (from a chapter earlier linked):

Chapter 7: “Ape-Men”​—What Were They?

FOR many years there have been reports that the fossil remains of apelike humans have been found. Scientific literature abounds with artists’ renderings of such creatures. Are these the evolutionary transitions between beast and man? Are “ape-men” our ancestors? Evolutionary scientists claim that they are. That is why we often read expressions such as this article title in a science magazine: “How Ape Became Man.”⁠1

True, some evolutionists do not feel that these theoretical ancestors of man should rightly be called “apes.” Even so, some of their colleagues are not so exacting.⁠2 Stephen Jay Gould says: “People . . . evolved from apelike ancestors.”⁠3 And George Gaylord Simpson stated: “The common ancestor would certainly be called an ape or a monkey in popular speech by anybody who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys.”⁠4

Why is the fossil record so important in the effort to document the existence of apelike ancestors for humankind? Because today’s living world has nothing in it to support the idea. As shown in Chapter 6, there is an enormous gulf between humans and any animals existing today, including the ape family. Hence, since the living world does not provide a link between man and ape, it was hoped that the fossil record would.

From the standpoint of evolution, the obvious gulf between man and ape today is strange. Evolutionary theory holds that as animals progressed up the evolutionary scale, they became more capable of surviving. Why, then, is the “inferior” ape family still in existence, but not a single one of the presumed intermediate forms, which were supposed to be more advanced in evolution? Today we see chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans, but no “ape-men.” Does it seem likely that every one of the more recent and supposedly more advanced “links” between apelike creatures and modern man should have become extinct, but not the lower apes?

How Much Fossil Evidence?

From the accounts in scientific literature, in museum displays and on television, it would seem that surely there must be abundant evidence that humans evolved from apelike creatures. Is this really so? For instance, what fossil evidence was there of this in Darwin’s day? Was it such evidence that encouraged him to formulate his theory?

The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists informs us: “The early theories of human evolution are really very odd, if one stops to look at them. David Pilbeam has described the early theories as ‘fossil-free.’ That is, here were theories about human evolution that one would think would require some fossil evidence, but in fact there were either so few fossils that they exerted no influence on the theory, or there were no fossils at all. So between man’s supposed closest relatives and the early human fossils, there was only the imagination of nineteenth century scientists.” This scientific publication shows why: “People wanted to believe in evolution, human evolution, and this affected the results of their work.”⁠5

After more than a century of searching, how much fossil evidence is there of “ape-men”? Richard Leakey stated: “Those working in this field have so little evidence upon which to base their conclusions that it is necessary for them frequently to change their conclusions.”⁠6 New Scientist commented: “Judged by the amount of evidence upon which it is based, the study of fossil man hardly deserves to be more than a sub-discipline of palaeontology or anthropology. . . . the collection is so tantalisingly incomplete, and the specimens themselves often so fragmentary and inconclusive.”⁠7

...

Where Are the “Links”?

However, have not scientists found the necessary “links” between apelike animals and man? Not according to the evidence. Science Digest speaks of “the lack of a missing link to explain the relatively sudden appearance of modern man.”⁠15 Newsweek observed: “The missing link between man and the apes . . . is merely the most glamorous of a whole hierarchy of phantom creatures. In the fossil record, missing links are the rule.”⁠16

Because there are no links, “phantom creatures” have to be fabricated from minimal evidence and passed off as though they had really existed. That explains why the following contradiction could occur, as reported by a science magazine: “Humans evolved in gradual steps from their apelike ancestors and not, as some scientists contend, in sudden jumps from one form to another. . . . But other anthropologists, working with much the same data, reportedly have reached exactly the opposite conclusion.”⁠17

Thus we can better understand the observation of respected anatomist Solly Zuckerman who wrote in the Journal of the Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh: “The search for the proverbial ‘missing link’ in man’s evolution, that holy grail of a never dying sect of anatomists and biologists, allows speculation and myth to flourish as happily to-day as they did 50 years ago and more.”⁠18 He noted that, all too often, facts were ignored, and instead, what was currently popular was championed in spite of evidence to the contrary.

Man’s “Family Tree”

As a result, the “family tree” often drawn of man’s claimed evolution from lower animals changes constantly. For example, Richard Leakey stated that a more recent fossil discovery “leaves in ruins the notion that all early fossils can be arranged in an orderly sequence of evolutionary change.”⁠19 And a newspaper report regarding that discovery declared: “Every single book on anthropology, every article on the evolution of man, every drawing of man’s family tree will have to be junked. They are apparently wrong.”⁠20

The theoretical family tree of human evolution is littered with the castoffs of previously accepted “links.” An editorial in The New York Times observed that evolutionary science “includes so much room for conjecture that theories of how man came to be tend to tell more about their author than their subject. . . . The finder of a new skull often seems to redraw the family tree of man, with his discovery on the center line that leads to man and everyone else’s skulls on side lines leading nowhere.”⁠21 [whereislogic: did you notice the 'sideline' trick I mentioned in my previous comment?]

In a book review of The Myths of Human Evolution written by evolutionists Niles Eldredge and Ian Tattersall, Discover magazine observed that the authors eliminated any evolutionary family tree. Why? After noting that “the links that make up the ancestry of the human species can only be guessed at,” this publication stated: “Eldredge and Tattersall insist that man searches for his ancestry in vain. . . . If the evidence were there, they contend, ‘one could confidently expect that as more hominid fossils were found the story of human evolution would become clearer. Whereas, if anything, the opposite has occurred.’”

Discover concluded: “The human species, and all species, will remain orphans of a sort, the identities of their parents lost to the past.”⁠22 Perhaps “lost” from the standpoint of evolutionary theory. But has not the Genesis alternative “found” our parents as they actually are in the fossil record​—fully human, just as we are?

The fossil record reveals a distinct, separate origin for apes and for humans. That is why fossil evidence of man’s link to apelike beasts is nonexistent. The links really have never been there.

What Did They Look Like?

However, if man’s ancestors were not apelike, why do so many pictures and replicas of “ape-men” flood scientific publications and museums around the world? On what are these based? The book The Biology of Race answers: “The flesh and hair on such reconstructions have to be filled in by resorting to the imagination.” It adds: “Skin color; the color, form, and distribution of the hair; the form of the features; and the aspect of the face​—of these characters we know absolutely nothing for any prehistoric men.”⁠23

Science Digest also commented: “The vast majority of artists’ conceptions are based more on imagination than on evidence. . . . Artists must create something between an ape and a human being; the older the specimen is said to be, the more apelike they make it.”⁠24 Fossil hunter Donald Johanson acknowledged: “No one can be sure just what any extinct hominid looked like.”⁠25

Indeed, New Scientist reported that there is not “enough evidence from fossil material to take our theorising out of the realms of fantasy.”⁠26 So the depictions of “ape-men” are, as one evolutionist admitted, “pure fiction in most respects . . . sheer invention.”⁠27 Thus in Man, God and Magic Ivar Lissner commented: “Just as we are slowly learning that primitive men are not necessarily savages, so we must learn to realize that the early men of the Ice Age were neither brute beasts nor semi-apes nor cretins. Hence the ineffable stupidity of all attempts to reconstruct Neanderthal or even Peking man.”⁠28

...

originally posted by: Xtrozero

The biggest issue is intelligent design is not needed

Every physical law that we are aware of is an absolute necessity for material existence. If any of the intermolecular forces were to change, matter could turn to a dust cloud in an instant. We live in a fine-tuned physical world that has perpetuated us in the goldi-locks zone astronomically, as well as metaphysically. We take for granted that the laws of physics remain constant every single day. It's what ensures the sun rises to allow you life every day.

originally posted by: Peeple
a reply to: GENERAL EYES

Ask cooperton and company. That's not my view so I really can't answer that why they want God to be human or 'in their image' but it's what they claim.

You thought my argument for intelligent design was a white bearded man in the sky with a chemistry set??? I have described multiple times certain traits I believe about this Intelligent Force... it pervades all time and space, so therefore is not limited by material or temporal limitations. Humans are the material manifestation of this Spirit, which is what it means to be 'made in the image of God'. That's not to say the Spirit is by any means limited or dependent upon its material manifestation, rather it is how the Spirit engages in material existence. Jesus was the unfettered manifestation of the Spirit.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES
a reply to: Peeple

What if intellgent design is just describing a conscious universe coming together with the natural laws therein?

Exactly

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
Here is what you said.

Please link to any reputable source saying you need trillions of random changes occurring simultaneously in a large number of the same species.

None is needed, nor could any authoritative scientific resource prove it. However, logic dictates that that would be the only possible way for such a thing to occur.

If you disagree, by all means, posit precisely how man could 'emerge' from some primordial ooze without it.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

None is needed, nor could any authoritative scientific resource prove it. However, logic dictates that that would be the only possible way for such a thing to occur.

If you disagree, by all means, posit precisely how man could 'emerge' from some primordial ooze without it.

He's saying specifically that trillions of mutations are not needed simultaneously, because it would be a gradual transformation. But the thing is, if it were even possible, most biological functions would theoretically require vast numbers of beneficial mutations to come to be. Given that the likelihood of just one beneficial mutation is:

1 in 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,
000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000
source

This is only the odds to change one functional group in a protein subunit... This would barely make an impact on function, so you would need many of these to hit in order to get any sort of novel biochemical function. Not to mention the difficulty for protein alterations to cause a deeper morphological change. For example, there's no gene that simply adds relevant neuronal mass to the brain. The mechanisms are much more complex than we understand at the moment, which is making 'random chance' less likely day by day

originally posted by: tanstaafl

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: tanstaafl
Here is what you said.

Please link to any reputable source saying you need trillions of random changes occurring simultaneously in a large number of the same species.

None is needed, nor could any authoritative scientific resource prove it. However, logic dictates that that would be the only possible way for such a thing to occur.

If you disagree, by all means, posit precisely how man could 'emerge' from some primordial ooze without it.

Your 'logic' is very very wrong.

a reply to: cooperton


Douglas Axe is a creationist who sells books on 'Inteligent Design'.

originally posted by: GENERAL EYES

I believe it was Terrance McKenna that stated our "fall" (i.e. conscious evolution) came with the ingestion of certian fungi which opened previously dormant centers of the primitive brain and opened them up to "new awareness".

The fungi being allegorical to the Tree of Knowledge.

Interesting, but strange. To me the tree of Knowledge represents when we developed enough to understand we are not animals anymore and so walked out of the Garden of Eden i.e. left the animal kingdom.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Yet entangled particles, including photons, have a link even when separated, and no matter how far apart that allows each separated entangled particle to know what happens to the other and acts accordingly. For this to happen there must be communication between the two separated and previously entangled particles. Since particles have no brains then they must have a connection with a higher intelligence which could only be God/Elohim. For communication to occur there must be intelligence, and since this happens to all entangled particles whether matter or energy particles it seems to point to a higher intelligence being behind this phenomenon.

You have just proved my point, thank you. People have a tendency to apply "God" or gods to things they do not understand yet. You do not understand the connections in quantum entanglement and so it must be God. We use to have 100s of Gods that slowly disappeared as we actually understood what each God represented, and now we just use one God for everything unknown. Things work extremely different at the Quantum level and you suggest this is impossible without God doing the work which is no different than saying the wind is a God, because you do not know how wind is created. So when we experiment such as below it is God directly getting involved? Or maybe it is just how Photons act in the subatomic level.

A laser beam fired through a certain type of crystal can cause individual photons to be split into pairs of entangled photons. The photons can be separated by a large distance, hundreds of miles or even more. When observed, Photon A takes on an up-spin state. Entangled Photon B, though now far away, takes up a state relative to that of Photon A (in this case, a down-spin state). The transfer of state between Photon A and Photon B takes place at a speed of at least 10,000 times the speed of light, possibly even instantaneously, regardless of distance. A proposed experiment would send one photon of the entangled pair to the orbiting International Space Station, a distance of around 310 miles (500 kilometers). This would be the largest distance that has been experimentally tested.

I dunno if books published by an ultra-religious organisation that lies under oath to the courts while trying to peddle their dogma into schools is a particularly reliable source of information.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse

Hannes thought that religion and science have to be separated, but they don't really need to. After all God/Elohim is eternal and there is a piece of him in everything he created. So like God/Elohim, his creation is eternal but goes through many phases/cycles. Beginnings and ends.

He thought that way because we are back to my "why" and "how" points that can interact no matter what side you are on. Once again you say there is a God and I say a God is not needed, but in either case the "how" can be the same.

To be honest I typically get involved with these conversations only when people mix the "why" and "how" together such as suggesting evolution is impossible because God made us all. I find that statement very frustrating as it seems many religious people want to separate science and God as two different events that can not coexist.

To debate God is irrational since nether side can prove anything and so the "why" is never solved. We are also talking faith here and that is believing in something with zero proof, so how do you debate that? lol

originally posted by: Xtrozero

People have a tendency to apply "God" or gods to things they do not understand yet. You do not understand the connections in quantum entanglement and so it must be God.

But quantum law perpetuates according to mathematic predictability. This demonstrates that the origin of these laws is intelligent rather than unintelligent

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton


Douglas Axe is a creationist who sells books on 'Inteligent Design'.

I do my own research I dunno who that is. I have no monetary incentive, I simply believe it is the truth

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Xtrozero

People have a tendency to apply "God" or gods to things they do not understand yet. You do not understand the connections in quantum entanglement and so it must be God.

But quantum law perpetuates according to mathematic predictability. This demonstrates that the origin of these laws is intelligent rather than unintelligent

originally posted by: ScepticScot
a reply to: cooperton


Douglas Axe is a creationist who sells books on 'Inteligent Design'.

I do my own research I dunno who that is. I have no monetary incentive, I simply believe it is the truth

You have linked to his paper at least twice in this thread.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

You have linked to his paper at least twice in this thread.

When? The Only links I gave were peer reviewed journals

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot

You have linked to his paper at least twice in this thread.

When? The Only links I gave were peer reviewed journals

That is correct.

It's his paper.

originally posted by: ScepticScot

That is correct.

It's his paper.

Well he's probably right considering we don't see organisms evolving into anything distinctly new, even after 73,000 generations.

You gotta see the forest among the trees, biological life is logical, not illogical

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: ScepticScot

That is correct.

It's his paper.

Well he's probably right considering we don't see organisms evolving into anything distinctly new, even after 73,000 generations.

You gotta see the forest among the trees, biological life is logical, not illogical

If you want to belive that feel free.

The overwhelming evidence is in favour of evolution.

originally posted by: cooperton

But quantum law perpetuates according to . This demonstrates that the origin of these laws is intelligent rather than unintelligent

It isn't intelligent just because you say so. You and others always play the absolute card and as I said before there is no way to prove either side, but keep saying your absolutes. There is a lot of predictability in the universe because the universe follows set rules and laws, so no one is suggesting total randomness. As example, life may not be random, happens when conditions are correct, but species are random though do follow paths of prior ancestors. We humans could have never happened or died out like the Neanderthal and a dozen of other humanoids did while life from the branch we come from in general goes on in other paths.

originally posted by: cooperton

Well he's probably right considering we don't see organisms evolving into anything distinctly new, even after 73,000 generations.

You gotta see the forest among the trees, biological life is logical, not illogical

You mean this experiment? Where they starved bacteria since 2020. I do agree, and the question to ask is why can't we get an elephant from bacteria after 2 whole years...lol geez You sure the hell take something and just make your own story about it to fit, don't you.

By doing whole genome sequencing (looking at the entire DNA sequence of the bacteria), the authors could see mutations and separations in lineages. They found two main subpopulations co-existing and adapting during the full length of the experiment. Mutations were found mostly in genes essential for long term survival and stress situations, and in genes necessary to use a new energy source.