Creationism and the Darwinian Theator of the Mind

[Bonky]

I'm not sure what you mean by:

Quote

When the Piltdown fraud was uncovered the Taung Child was promoted to human ancestor.

Taung child was interpreted by Dart to be a missing link so to speak from early on.  Many scientists at the time still viewed Eurasia as the origin of early man, not Africa...so Dart was fighting an uphill battle.  There were a couple other australopithecine fossils discovered [1936, 1947] that resembled the Taung fossil and not the piltdown hoax.   You seem to be suggesting that scientists went from one fraud [piltdown] to another [taung].  I don't think you've supported that at all.

So my objections so far stem from statements you've made but haven't supported:

The Taung Child, that replaced the Piltdown hoax, is a chimpanzee

and

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.

 

The Taung child clearly has differences from a chimpanzee but you still seem to be insistent that it's a chimp.  I'm just asking that you support what you're saying.

 

[thilipsis]

10 hours ago, Bonky said:

I'm not sure what you mean by:

Taung child was interpreted by Dart to be a missing link so to speak from early on.  Many scientists at the time still viewed Eurasia as the origin of early man, not Africa...so Dart was fighting an uphill battle.  There were a couple other australopithecine fossils discovered [1936, 1947] that resembled the Taung fossil and not the piltdown hoax.   You seem to be suggesting that scientists went from one fraud [piltdown] to another [taung].  I don't think you've supported that at all.

So my objections so far stem from statements you've made but haven't supported:

The Taung Child, that replaced the Piltdown hoax, is a chimpanzee

and

Ever notice that there are no Chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record? That’s because every time a gracial (smooth) skull, that is dug up in Asian or Africa they are automatically one of our ancestors.

 

The Taung child clearly has differences from a chimpanzee but you still seem to be insistent that it's a chimp.  I'm just asking that you support what you're saying.

 

I would start with the cranial capacity of 340 cc, clearly not in the Hominid range. Then there is the wave after wave of controversy surronding the skull from it's first discovery:

"an examination of the casts... will satisfy geologists that this claim is preposterous. The skull is that of a young anthropoid ape... and showing so many points of affinity with the two living African anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee, that there cannot be a moment's hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group" (Arthur Keith, letter to Nature Magazine)

To a more convoluted discussion and controversy that rages in more modern times:

Dean Falk, a specialist in neuroanatomy, noted that Dart had not fully considered certain apelike attributes for Taung.

    "In his 1925 article, Dart had claimed that the brain of Taung was humanlike. As it turned out, he was wrong about that. . . . Taung's humanlike features were overemphasized".

    "Like humans, other primates go through stages as they grow up. In his analysis of Taung, Dart did not fully appreciate that infant apes have not had time to develop features of the skull, such as thickened eyebrow ridges or attachment areas for heavy neck muscles, that set adult apes apart from human. Apparently he did not carefully consider the possibility that Taung's rounded forehead or the inferred position of the spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans". (Taung Child, Wikipedia)

That's not so much, l realize that controversy is part of paleontology and there are going to be questions regarding comparative anatomy. It the place in history that the Taung Child represents and the obvious motives to scramble for a viable transitional to replace the Piltdown hoax:

The turning point in the acceptance of Dart's analysis of the Taung Child came in 1947, when the prominent British anthropologist Wilfrid Le Gros Clark announced that he supported it. Le Gros Clark, who would also play an important role in exposing the Piltdown fraud in 1953, visited Johannesburg in late 1946 to study Dart's Taung skull and Broom's adult fossils with the intention of proving that they were only apes. But after two weeks of studies and after visiting the caves where Broom had found his fossils – the Taung cave had been destroyed by miners soon after the discovery of the Taung skull – Le Gros Clark became convinced that "Dart and Broom were essentially right in their assessment of the significance of the australopithecines as the probable precursors of more advanced types of [humans]." In early January 1947 at the First Pan-African Congress on Prehistory, he was the first anthropologist of such stature to call the Taung Child a "hominid", that is, an early human. An anonymous article published in Nature on 15 February 1947 announced Le Gros Clark's conclusions to a wider public. On that day, Arthur Keith, who had been one of Dart's most virulent critics, composed a letter to the editor of Nature announcing that he supported Le Gros Clark's analysis: "I was one of those who took the point of view that when the adult form [of Australopithecus] was discovered it would prove to be near akin to the living African anthropoids—the gorilla and the chimpanzee. I am now convinced ... that Prof. Dart was right and that I was wrong." As Roger Lewin put it in his book Bones of Contention, "a prompter and more thorough capitulation could hardly be imagined." (Taung Child, Wikipedia)

So Le Gros Clark helps to expose the Piltdown hoax and then becomes instrumental in elevating the Taung Child to the status of Hominid. The Piltdown hoax now being exposed they turned to the only alternative they had, the Taung Child, that they were working to dismiss. Then in a dramatic reversal two key people; Keith and Le Gros Clark flip and it wasn't very long before Keith's apprentice, Louis Leaky would publish the 'Latest New From Oldovia Gorge' dismissing the Cerebral Rubicon, the cranial capacity that had previously been the stopping point for inclusion into the genus Homo. The myth of the stone age handyman 'Homo habilis' was born. 

It would not be so bad if it were not so obvious. Not only is this evident and obvious in paleontology but it's readily apparent in comparative genomics. The inverse logic is intuitively obvious. Special creation remains the alternative explanation and no amount of rationalization can escape that.

Let me just be clear for a minute, I want to be fair, I actually admire Leaky and even Charles Darwin. If you buy what they are selling I say go in peace I have no problem with you but I see what looks like blatant misrepresentation here. I would accept a viable causal molecular mechanism  for the evolution of the human brain from that of apes if there was any to be had, and adjust my theology accordingly. I would accept legitimate fossil evidence if it presented an open and honest transitional but I'm not seeing that. What I'm seeing is bogus ancestors being passed off as hominids and comparative genomics being grossly misrepresented. If it turns out that I'm wrong I will gladly and promptly admit it and have every confidence my Christian convictions will survive intact.

What is much more important is we rely on scientists to tell us the truth regarding evidence and adjust their theories accordingly. Unfortunately, what I'm seeing is the evidence distorted. Feel free to prove me wrong and respond as you see fit. Ultimately I have this one confidence, the truth will prevail.

Grace and peace,
Mark 

 

 

[Dave LP]

On ‎11‎/‎26‎/‎2016 at 0:34 AM, thilipsis said:

It's always a great pleasure to encounter a fellow creationist who simply explores the subject matter in a civil and straightforward manner. I've seen a lot of them over the years, I've seen them run out of discussion forums to form their own discussion groups. Most Creationists are gentle natured people who are simply curious about how Scripture can be cross referenced with the scientific discoveries of the day. Take your time with this Dave, I promise you, there is nothing in the evidence that is going to contradict the Genesis account of creation. That's why Darwinians and sometimes creationists are so melodramatic about these things. At the end of the day God's glory is reflected in the things that were created and it's not us who confirm the creation account, that responsibility resides with the only one who can tell us when and how life was created. God himself.

That's exactly what I'm getting from paleontology, the Taung Child and Lucy are knuckle dragging apes. Think about it, we sent a chimpanzee into outer space, chimpanzees are doing good to use sticks to eat termites or clubs to ward off intruders. The Scientific Revolution was about tools, mental and physical. What you build with them is entirely up to you. The way I think I know the difference between chimpanzees and humans in the fossil record is simply the size and complexity of the human brain. A chimpanzee has a cranial capacity about three times smaller then the human mean average. The genetic basis for an adaptive evolution of the human brain from that of apes is a burden of proof that resides with the Darwinians who have failed miserably to produce an effective cause for such a change.

Like I say, take your time and don't let the melodrama discourage you, the truth will prevail.

Grace and peace,
Mark

It's been an enlightening discussion.  One turning point for me was years ago when I was listening to Dave Moore on the radio.  He mentioned Lucy and some of the facts surrounding the discovery.  I'd been lead to believe Darwinism was only rejected religious grounds. Realizing that there were indeed good reasons to at least doubt it as a missing link was a big turning point.  It lead me to examine what I believed and I read books like Darwin's Black Box, Buried Alive, etc.  And as you've shown here, the facts surrounding the origin of 60+ de novo genes, SRGAP2B/C/D and HAR1f genes puts a substantial burden of proof on the neo-darwinists.  I've noticed there are a few recent peer reviewed articles challenging the Neo-Darwinism view.  To appear there would have been unthinkable a few decades ago.  Like you said it's a worldview, which is fine if people buy into it, I have no problem with them.           

Thanks for your words of encouragement!  From what I've seen here (and on the other forum) you're a very skilled debater! 

Blessings!

-Dave

[Enoch2021]

On 11/25/2016 at 11:09 PM, thilipsis said:

Well now that one could take a while but since the issue here is natural history the development of the inductive approach to scientific method seems a likely place to start:

I have not as yet been able to discover the reason for these properties of gravity from phenomena, and I do not feign hypotheses. For whatever is not deduced from the phenomena must be called a hypothesis; and hypotheses, whether metaphysical or physical, or based on occult qualities, or mechanical, have no place in experimental philosophy. In this philosophy particular propositions are inferred from the phenomena, and afterwards rendered general by induction. (Newton, General Scholium)

Ahhh No.  I asked you...

Please define a Scientific Hypothesis...?  List the Characteristics ...?  Provide an example of one...?

These are the correct answers...

"Scientific Hypothesis - a special kind of prediction that forecasts how the independent variable will affect the dependent variable."
http://www.csef.colostate.edu/resources/vocabulary.pdf

Forming Testable Hypotheses:

 

"The key word is testable. That is, you will perform a test of how two variables might be related. This is when you are doing a real experiment. You are testing variables.

 

Formalized Hypotheses example: If skin cancer is related to ultraviolet light , then people with a high exposure to uv light will have a higher frequency of skin cancer.

If leaf color change is related to temperature , then exposing plants to low temperatures will result in changes in leaf color.

Notice that these statements contain the words , if and then. They are necessary in a formalized hypothesis.

 

Formalized hypotheses contain two variables. One is "independent" and the other is "dependent". The independent variable is the one you, the "scientist" control and the dependent variable is the one that you observe and/or measure the results.

The ultimate value of a formalized hypothesis is it forces us to think about what results we should look for in an experiment.

 

Notice there are two parts to a formalized hypothesis: the “if” portion contains the testable proposed relationship and the “then” portion is the prediction of expected results from an experiment.  An acceptable hypothesis contains both aspects, not just the prediction portion."

http://www.csub.edu/~ddodenhoff/Bio100/Bio100sp04/formattingahypothesis.htm

 

A Scientific Hypothesis is your Experiment Statement; it expresses a TESTABLE proposed CAUSE AND EFFECT Relationship.

"A hypothesis is an educated guess, based on observation. It's a prediction of cause and effect."

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

 

"The Scientific Method is hypothesis-driven; one makes an educated guess to explain a cause-and-effect relationship."

http://www.pages.drexel.edu/~pyo22/students/hypothesis.html

 

"A scientific hypothesis is based on cause-effect reasoning.  A scientific hypothesis does not merely state X and Y may be related, but explains why they are related."

Loehle, C: Becoming a Successful Scientist -- Strategic Thinking for Scientific Discovery; Cambridge University Press, p. 57, 2010

 

Example:  "Observe a Phenomenon": Sailors appear crippled, bleeding gums/tooth loss, poor would healing, rashes after long sea journeys. 

There could be a number of possible causes, but for brevity we finally realize it's related to diet with poor fruit/vegetable intake.  

 

Construct Hypothesis:

 

"IF" VIT C intake is crucial to collagen integrity (in humans), "THEN" eliminating VIT C intake (in humans) will cause Scurvy.  

This is a VALID Scientific HYPOTHESIS and a TESTABLE statement.

 

Dependent Variable: (The Effect -- "Prediction"): Scurvy

 

Independent Variable (The Cause): Vit C Intake

 

Quote

 

1. The obvious example here was the Newtonian theory of gravity, one of the keystones in physics for the development of the principles of motion.

If the arrival of the modern scientific age could be pinpointed to a particular moment and a particular place, it would be 27 April 1676 at the Royal Society, for it was on that day that the results obtained in a meticulous experiment- experimentum crucis -were found to fit with the hypothesis, so transforming a hypothesis into a demonstrable theory. (Issac Newton, Michael White)

2.  While I consider this a tangent that's an hypothesis and how it fits into inductive scientific method. You have other ideas let's hear them.

 

1.  Ahhh No.  I asked you...

Define a Scientific Theory...? List the Characteristics...? Provide an example of one...?

These are the correct answers...

"Scientific Theories": "Explain" --- The How/WHY (mechanisms/process); e.g., Germ Theory.  Scientific Theories are the Result of Validated/Confirmed Scientific Hypotheses that have been rigorously TESTED...

 

 

A Scientific Theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

A Scientific Theory consists of one or more hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. {emphasis mine} 
http://www.fromquarkstoquasars.com/hypothesis-theory-or-law/

A Scientific Theory represents an hypothesis, or a group of related hypotheses, which has been CONFIRMED  through REPEATED EXPERIMENTAL TESTS. {emphasis mine} 
http://teacher.nsrl.rochester.edu/phy_labs/appendixe/appendixe.html

Example:  Germ Theory --  the theory that certain diseases are caused by the invasion of the body by microorganisms, organisms too small to be seen except through a microscope.  https://www.britannica.com/topic/germ-theory

 

Moreover, Newton didn't propose a 'theory of gravitation' he proposed "The LAW of Universal Gravitation":  Fg ∝ m₁M₂/d²

A.  You can't have 'matheMagical' Scientific Theories because Math can only 'DESCRIBE"; whereas Scientific Theories "EXPLAIN".

B. To have a "Scientific Theory",  you have to be able to EXPLAIN and demonstrate (Via Experiment)--- THE CAUSE !!

That's kinda difficult...

Martin Rees; FRS, Astronomer Royal; Esteemed British cosmologist/astrophysicist... 

 

"WHAT CAUSES GRAVITY AND MASS? Is the universe infinite? How did atoms assemble—on at least one planet around at least one star—into beings able to ponder these mysteries? THESE QUESTIONS STILL BAFFLE ALL OF US. Rather than the “end of science” being nigh, we are still near the beginning of the cosmic quest." {emphasis mine}

http://press.princeton.edu/chapters/p7115.html 

 

Newton himself wasn't exactly enamored/married to the idea...

In a letter to Dr. Richard Bentley on Feb. 25th, 1692, Isaac Newton says: 

 

"Tis inconceivable that inanimate brute matter should (without mediation of something else which is not material) operate upon and affect other matter without mutual contact... 

“That gravity should be innate inherent and essential to matter so that one body can act upon another at a distance through a vacuum without mediation of anything else by and through which their action or force may be conveyed from one to another is to me SO GREAT AN ABSURDITY that I believe no man who has in philosophical matters a competent faculty of thinking can ever fall into it."
Scheurer, PB., Debrock, G: Newton's Scientific and Philosophical Legacy, 1988, p.52

 

Furthermore, the 'Scientific Community' follows EisHSteinian 'gravity', not an "Invisible Force" -- Newtonian 'gravity': 

"For instance, Einstein created his general theory of relativity—which provides our modern understanding of gravity—with the express purpose of expunging nonlocality from physics. Isaac Newton's gravity acted at a distance, as if by magic, and general relativity snapped the wand in two by showing that the curvature of spacetime, and not an invisible force, gives rise to gravitational attraction."

Musser George: How Einstein Revealed the Universe's Strange "Nonlocality"; Scientific American, November 2015.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-einstein-revealed-the-universe-s-strange-nonlocality/

 

 

2.  It's an Incoherent Tangent and it's neither a Scientific Hypothesis or a Scientific Theory.  More Importantly, Scientific Hypotheses aren't Scientific Theories...

"Words have precise meanings in science. For example, 'theory', 'law', and 'hypothesis' don't all mean the same thing." 

http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm

 

Quote

No because that's what the Modern Synthesis, aka Neodarwinism is, it's a unified theory of biology. Call it what you will.

So it's a 'unified theory of biology' because it's a 'unified theory of biology' ?? 

Define Circular Reasoning...?

 

I call it -- and more importantly demonstrated, that it's a Metaphysical Fairytale "Just-So" Story.

 

Quote

Yet you have not managed anything other then some scathing ad hominem remarks. I consider this kind of fallacious rhetoric to be an argument that never happened since it pertains to nothing substantive.

Illustrating and Demonstrating How/Why your arguments are incoherent as I've done here, in this thread as a whole, and especially HERE: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/202620-evolution-where-is-the-evidence/?do=findComment&comment=2468175 isn't ad hominem (Fallacy) professor; it's the OPPOSITE of it. 

 

Quote

Then at least you will enjoy a good laugh.

Yes, I have.  Thanks!

 

Quote

I am not passing myself off as a biochemist and over the years I came to realize this isn't all that technical.

So Genetics/Biochemistry isn't all that Technical, eh? 

 

Quote

If you want to introduce something biochemical into the mix feel free, until then I really don't see your point.

I did HERE: https://www.worthychristianforums.com/topic/202620-evolution-where-is-the-evidence/?do=findComment&comment=2468175

But ahhh, you never responded ( I wonder why??).

 

Quote

The way I see it, you and I decide to have fresh baked bread and eclairs for lunch. So we go to a local baker and buy them. You might have to be a baker to make them but certainly don't have to be a baker to eat them. 

Goodness Gracious.

 

Quote

I've fielded this kind of fallacious reasoning too many times to count.

You've 'fielded' , you're the MAIN PROGENITOR of them!  My word.

 

Quote

I have never seen anyone recover from the allure of fallacious rhetoric.

Me neither.  We've been witnessing your failed attempts from the beginning ---confirming your 'prediction' here; thanks for the Practical Application Examples.

 

regards

 

[FresnoJoe]

On 11/26/2016 at 0:02 PM, Bonky said:

The Taung child clearly has differences from a chimpanzee....
but you still seem to be insistent that it's a chimp.... 
I'm just asking that you support....

Another

Then the LORD God formed a man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being. Genesis 2:7 (New International Version)

Dart wished to establish an anatomical museum in his new department, and his attention was drawn to fossilized baboon skulls that were being unearthed in a lime mine at Taung in the northern Cape. In Adventures with the Missing Link, Dart relates how two boxes of fossils from Taung were delivered to his house one Saturday afternoon in 1924, just as he was dressing for a wedding reception to be held there. Unable to contain his curiosity, he wrenched open the boxes in the driveway. The first did not seem to contain anything of interest. But when he looked into the second, he later recalled:

a thrill of excitement shot through me. On the very top of the rock heap was what was undoubtedly an endocranial cast or mold of the interior of the skull. Had it been only the fossilised brain cast of any species of ape it would have ranked as a great discovery, for such a thing had never before been reported. But I knew at a glance that what lay in my hands was no ordinary anthropoidal brain. Here in lime-consolidated sand was the replica of a brain three times as large as that of a baboon and considerably bigger than that of an adult chimpanzee. The startling image of the convolutions and furrows of the brain and the blood vessels of the skull were plainly visible.

It was not big enough for primitive man, but even for an ape it was a big bulging brain and, most important, the forebrain was so big and had grown so far backward that it completely covered the hindbrain.

But was there anywhere among this pile of rocks, a face to fit the brain? I ransacked feverishly through the boxes. My search was rewarded, for I found a large stone with a depression into which the cast fitted perfectly.…

I stood in the shade holding the brain as greedily as any miser hugs his gold, my mind racing ahead. Here I was certain was one of the most significant finds ever made in the history of anthropology.

Darwin's largely discredited theory that man's early progenitors probably lived in Africa came back to me. Was I to be the instrument by which his 'missing link' was found?

These pleasant daydreams were interrupted by the bridegroom himself tugging at my sleeve. 'My God, Ray,' he said, striving to keep the nervous urgency out of his voice. 'You've got to finish dressing immediately—or I'll have to find another best man. The bridal car should be here any moment'.

Reluctantly, I replaced the rocks in the boxes, but I carried the endocranial cast and the stone from which it had come along with me and locked them away in my wardrobe.

For the next three months Dart used every spare moment to patiently chip away the matrix from the skull, using his wife's sharpened knitting needles. Then, two days before Christmas, the rock parted and the face of a child emerged, with a full set of milk teeth and its permanent molars in the process of erupting. Dart wrote: "I doubt if there was any parent prouder of his offspring than I was of my Taungs baby on that Christmas of 1924."

Dart wasted no time in preparing his report for submission to Nature. in essence, it pointed out that while the skull, teeth, and jaw of this child had been "humanoid," rather than anthropoid or apelike, this was undoubtedly a small-brained hominid, or member of the human family—the first of its kind to be described. He pointed out that the forward position of the foramen magnum, where the spinal cord attached to the skull, clearly indicated that this hominid had walked upright, with its hands free for the manipulation of tools and weapons in an open environment far to the south of the equatorial forests inhabited by chimpanzees and gorillas. Finally, Dart asserted that Australopithecus africanus, the southern ape of Africa, as he called it, provided clear evidence that Africa had been the cradle of mankind. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/284158_brain.html

Excellent Question

Yet God has made everything beautiful for its own time. He has planted eternity in the human heart, but even so, people cannot see the whole scope of God's work from beginning to end. Ecclesiastes 3:11 (New Living Translation)

So it is not surprising that Dart's child from Taung, presented as the "missing link" from Africa, met a chilly reception in Europe. The authorities dismissed it as, at best, a relative of the chimpanzee or gorilla with little relevance to human ancestry, stressing that until an adult specimen was available, the matter was hardly worth discussing.

This attitude prevailed even though Dart took the specimen to Britain in 1931 and exhibited it at scientific gatherings. At this time, the Taung child had a strange experience: by mistake, Dora Dart left it in the back of a London taxi. After a prolonged tour of London, the box was opened by the taxi driver who, alarmed at seeing a skull inside, took it straight to a police station. Here a distraught Dora was reunited with the child.

Although Dart's claims endured severe criticism overseas, in South Africa they enjoyed the unwavering support of Robert Broom, a paleontologist known for his work on the evolution of mammals from reptiles. In his later years, while he was based at the Transvaal Museum in Pretoria, Broom started a deliberate search for an adult fossil of Australopithecus. His attention was drawn by several of Dart's students to the Sterkfontein caves near Krugersdorp, where lime mining had unearthed fossil baboon skulls as at Taung.

In August 1936, on his second visit to Sterkfontein, Broom was handed the endocranial cast of an adult ape-man by the quarry manager and in the next few days he found much of the rest of the skull. One month later his report on Australopithecus transvaalensis, as he named the new find, appeared in Nature and The Illustrated London News. The initial discovery was followed by many others during the next few years, leaving no doubt as to the hominid status of this African ape-man.

Not content with this, in 1938 Broom described a second kind of hominid from the nearby cave of Kromdraai as Paranthropus robustus, with a wide flat face and extremely large molar teeth. Subsequent work has shown that this "robust" ape-man lineage arose from an africanus-like stock about 2.5 million years ago and then coexisted with early humans until about a million years ago, when it became extinct.

With fossils of adult ape-men now available for study, Dart's concept of Australopithecus as an African ancestor of later humans was generally accepted. Heartened and relieved, Dart reentered the emotional field of hominid paleontology and started a long-term investigation of the Makapansgat Limeworks cave, 250 kilometers northeast of Johannesburg. Here miners had blasted out a vast accumulation of fossil bones, and among them Dart identified and described several new Australopithecus specimens. Most of the other fossils came from antelope and Dart speculated as to how all of these bones had found their way to the cave. In a long series of publications he argued that the ape-men had been mighty hunters that underwent a "predatory transition from ape to man," bringing back to their cave those bones from their kills that could serve as useful tools and weapons. Using dramatic and provocative prose, Dart presented his view of "the blood-bespattered archives of humanity" and provoked further research on the ways that bones accumulate in African caves.

East Africa came into the paleontological spotlight in 1959, when Mary Leakey found a very complete robust ape-man skull at Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania; this has been followed by numerous other finds in Tanzania, Kenya, Ethiopia, and elsewhere. Many of these fossils come from lake bed sediments, which can be dated from the volcanic ash beds laid down with them. It appears now that more than four million years ago, small upright-walking hominids such as Ardipithecus ramidus and Australopithecus anamensis were living in forest-edge habitats of northeast Africa; in time they were succeeded by small Australopithecus afarensis individuals, known now by many fossils including the skeleton of "Lucy" immortalized by Don Johanson. These appear to have been the ancestors of Dart's Australopithecus africanus, which could have given rise to both our own and the robust ape-man lineages. http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/284158_brain.html

~

The Authority~!

Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! Romans 11:13 (English Standard Version)

The Reason I Believe No One Will Never See Evolution

God saw all that He had made, and behold, it was very good. And there was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. Genesis 1:31 (New American Standard Bible)

Upon The Earth Today Except In Cartoons

Then I saw all the work of God, that man can't find out the work that is done under the sun, because however much a man labors to seek it out, yet he won't find it. Yes even though a wise man thinks he can comprehend it, he won't be able to find it. Ecclesiastes 8:17 (New Heart English Bible)

And (Bad) Science-Fiction

I applied my mind to seek and explore through wisdom all that is done under heaven. God has given people this miserable task to keep them occupied. Ecclesiastes 1:13 (Holman Christian Standard Bible)

~

Be Blessed Beloved Of The KING

The LORD bless thee, and keep thee:
The LORD make his face shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee:
The LORD lift up his countenance upon thee, and give thee peace.

And they shall put my name upon the children of Israel; and I will bless them. Numbers 6:24-27 (King James Bible)

Love, Your Brother Joe

~

Thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever. Psalms 119:160 (King James Bible)

The Bible contains the mind of God, the state of man, the way of salvation, the doom of sinners, and the happiness of believers. Its doctrines are holy, its precepts are binding, its histories are true, and its decisions are immutable.

Read it to be wise, believe it to be safe, and practice it to be holy. It contains light to direct you, food to support you, and comfort to cheer you.

It is the traveler’s map, the pilgrim’s staff, the pilot’s compass, the soldier’s sword and the Christian’s charter. Here too, Heaven is opened and the gates of Hell disclosed.

Christ is its grand subject, our good its design, and the glory of God its end. It should fill the memory, rule the heart and guide the feet. Read it slowly, frequently and prayerfully.  It is a mine of wealth, a paradise of glory, and a river of pleasure.

It is given you in life, will be opened at the judgment, and be remembered forever. It involves the highest responsibility, rewards the greatest labor, and will condemn all who trifle with its sacred contents.

From The Inside Of My Gideon New Testament

[thilipsis]

28 minutes ago, Enoch2021 said:

Ahhh No.  I asked you...

 

I know what you asked me, I'm not interested in chasing this around the mulberry bush. There are testable hypothesis that is a normal part of empirical methodology and then there are unified theories. The former is inductive investigations of natural phenomenon, I'm talking about Darwinism as a unified theory of biology, aka a synthesis:

We didn’t sit down and forge a synthesis. We all knew each others writings; all spoke with each other. We all had  the same goal, which was simply to understand fully the evolutionary process…By combining our knowledge, we managed to straighten out all the conflicts and disagreements so that finally a united picture of evolution emerged. The theory of evolution quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology. (Ernst Mayr)

It's largely philosophical, it in invariably traced back to Darwin and Larmarck. This one statement sums it up for me:

in 1815, in the Introduction to his (Lamarck) "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

There is a difference evolution as a phenomenon and the 'theory of evolution', readily discerned. I'm not into all the formatting and smiley faces. I take the subject matter seriously and I have made every effort to address your issues. If we don't get past this, I don't see us making any progress. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

 

[thilipsis]

5 minutes ago, FresnoJoe said:

Dart wasted no time in preparing his report for submission to Nature. in essence, it pointed out that while the skull, teeth, and jaw of this child had been "humanoid," rather than anthropoid or apelike, this was undoubtedly a small-brained hominid, or member of the human family—the first of its kind to be described. He pointed out that the forward position of the foramen magnum, where the spinal cord attached to the skull, clearly indicated that this hominid had walked upright, with its hands free for the manipulation of tools and weapons in an open environment far to the south of the equatorial forests inhabited by chimpanzees and gorillas. Finally, Dart asserted that Australopithecus africanus, the southern ape of Africa, as he called it, provided clear evidence that Africa had been the cradle of mankind.

Just for the record I wanted to provide the citation for this quote, mainly because it's an excellent essay from a very interesting series.

A Century of Nature reprints twenty-one seminal contributions from Nature and adds commentary by leading scientists. This essay accompanies "Australopithecus africanus: the man-ape of South Africa" by Raymond A. Dart published in 1925. "Nature's eminence attracts papers of revolutionary import, making this volume of twenty-one articles of wide interest. This anthology's aura of discovery will absorb avid science fans."—Booklist. (Raymond Dart and our African origins C. K. Brain from A Century of Nature: Twenty-One Discoveries that Changed Science and the World)

Just a kind of footnote.

[thilipsis]

3 hours ago, Dave LP said:

It's been an enlightening discussion.  One turning point for me was years ago when I was listening to Dave Moore on the radio.  He mentioned Lucy and some of the facts surrounding the discovery.  I'd been lead to believe Darwinism was only rejected religious grounds. Realizing that there were indeed good reasons to at least doubt it as a missing link was a big turning point.  It lead me to examine what I believed and I read books like Darwin's Black Box, Buried Alive, etc.  And as you've shown here, the facts surrounding the origin of 60+ de novo genes, SRGAP2B/C/D and HAR1f genes puts a substantial burden of proof on the neo-darwinists.  I've noticed there are a few recent peer reviewed articles challenging the Neo-Darwinism view.  To appear there would have been unthinkable a few decades ago.  Like you said it's a worldview, which is fine if people buy into it, I have no problem with them.           

Thanks for your words of encouragement!  From what I've seen here (and on the other forum) you're a very skilled debater! 

Blessings!

-Dave

It's encouraging to hear you say that, I was wondering if anyone actually read the opening post. I actually got started on this subject almost by accident, I was on a secular board and mentioned in passing that I was opposed to teaching creationism in the public schools even though I'm a Young Earth Creationist and I was inundated with flaming retorts. Even the moderators jumped on me and long story short, I ended up in Christian Forums. It flowed like a chat line and I became acquainted with a number of real world scientists, all evolutionists of course. For the longest time I confined myself to the scientific literature almost exclusively and while the inevitable flames were tiresome I always learned something that was just fascinating. I happened upon a formal debate between two Christian apologists who were arguing the merits of Evidential Apologetics vs. Presuppositional approaches. I messaged the Evidential guy and he called my approach ad hominem, using source material your opponent would never dream of arguing against.

My purpose is not to win a debate, most of them go in circles anyway. I think our true history is found in the pages of Scripture, past, present and in the very near future. I think the animosity against anything theistic is symptomatic of our culture drifting into a naturalistic frame of reference I think is unhealthy spiritually.

Thank you so much for your kind words of support and BTW, if your ever interested in a Bible Study let me know. Don't let the drama from the Darwinian Theater of the Mind trouble you, I know from personal experience it's mostly just bad acting. More importantly, don't be afraid to explore the life sciences, in the last century we saw the rise of a brand new science. Genetics went from chromosome theory to the Human Genome project and about half way through the century, we saw the rise of the DNA double helix model unveiled. Genesis is vital as history, science is about tools mental and physical and with regards to creation and evolution, Genetics is the prize. The truth will prevail.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

Edited November 27, 2016 by thilipsis

[Enoch2021]

5 hours ago, thilipsis said:

I know what you asked me, I'm not interested in chasing this around the mulberry bush. There are testable hypothesis that is a normal part of empirical methodology and then there are unified theories. The former is inductive investigations of natural phenomenon, I'm talking about Darwinism as a unified theory of biology, aka a synthesis:

We didn’t sit down and forge a synthesis. We all knew each others writings; all spoke with each other. We all had  the same goal, which was simply to understand fully the evolutionary process…By combining our knowledge, we managed to straighten out all the conflicts and disagreements so that finally a united picture of evolution emerged. The theory of evolution quite rightly called the greatest unifying theory in biology. (Ernst Mayr)

It's largely philosophical, it in invariably traced back to Darwin and Larmarck. This one statement sums it up for me:

in 1815, in the Introduction to his (Lamarck) "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)

There is a difference evolution as a phenomenon and the 'theory of evolution', readily discerned. I'm not into all the formatting and smiley faces. I take the subject matter seriously and I have made every effort to address your issues. If we don't get past this, I don't see us making any progress. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

Good Grief, what a trainwreck.

 

regards

 

[thilipsis]

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Good Grief, what a trainwreck.

 

regards

 

Done deal