Let's Discuss Scientific Objections to Evolution

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, theElect777 said:

"The post-Darwinian 'paradigm' adopted living chimpanzees as stand-ins for the LCA," says Tim White, a palaeoanthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley.

This is just the first in a list of quote mines. Data drives science, not quotes.  If you want to discuss the quotes, then please provide a reference so we can see the full context.

[one.opinion]

1 hour ago, theElect777 said:

Sure, I will take a look.

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

The “Dissent from Darwinism” is propaganda.

1. It reduces the theory of evolution to a straw man version that has been outdated since Kimura introduced the Neutral Theory - in 1968. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution) No expert scientist argues that random mutation and natural selection are sufficient by themselves.

2. All scientists SHOULD be skeptical - of any data. That is what peer review is all about.

3. “Careful examination of the evidence... should be encouraged.” There should be careful examination of ANY evidence for any type of science.

I personally know of people that have signed this statement, not knowing it was going to be used as Intelligent Design propaganda. As you can see, there is not a single part of the Dissent that even mentions ID.

[Marathoner]

4 hours ago, theElect777 said:

Evolutionary Biologist claim the LCA is still missing a linear chain connecting us and apes to the Australopithecus Afarensis for one.

This statement doesn't make sense, friend. Where does this come from? 

• The chimpanzee is not bipedal. They are semi-erect knuckle walkers who occasionally engage in brachiation. Their skeletal morphology and attendant musculature are well-suited to facilitate terrestrial knuckle walking and the swift, secure grasping of tree limbs with both hands and feet. Their arms are longer than their legs; the pelvis is narrow, elongated, and not configured to support an erect posture.  
• All known lineages of australopiths, both robust and gracile, were bipedal and stood fully erect. A. Afarensis is an example of a gracile australopith. Prognathism (elongation of the lower mandible) is comparable to their simian contemporaries. Like the modern chimp and gorilla, the australopiths had "elongated" faces. 
• At one time A. Afarensis was hypothesized to be a descendant of the ancestor which resulted in humanity after the divergence between Homo and Pan occurred. 
• The australopiths were bipedal apes extant during the early Pliocene, enduring for approximately 3 million years of geological time until the last of their kind met with extinction during the early Pleistocene. They were contemporaries of early H. Erectus.  The australopiths fashioned stone tools.

Edited August 13, 2020 by Marathoner

[Marathoner]

You might find this of interest, @one.opinion. 

You may recall Homo Habilis from your days in college, the earliest specimen of archaic Homo identified in the fossil record. This lineage was remarkably similar to the gracile australopiths. Like A. Afarensis, Habilis was approximately three feet in height but this is where their similarity ends. Habilis had a greater cranial capacity and was a prolific tool-maker, forensic evidence suggesting they consumed greater quantities of meat than the australopiths who subsisted primarily on a vegetative diet. The primary evidence for this is found in the dentition of the australopiths and genus Homo: our teeth are less robust than theirs were, indicative that genus Homo engaged in the processing of food before consumption. This makes sense considering the narrow and elongated throat structure unique to humanity.

We're the only ape known to choke on food. Our throats are constricted (as well as elongated) in such a way in order to facilitate speech.  

Until the archeological find at Dmanisi reported in 2013, H. Habilis was believed incapable of leaving the confines of continental Africa. This distinction was reserved exclusively to Homo Erectus whose fossilized remains have been found in Africa (earliest) and across Asia (more recent). Homo Erectus is remarkable for a number of reasons which I'll touch upon below:

• Male specimens of Erectus have been found exceeding six feet in height;
• Erectus used fire two million years ago from the present era;
• Forensic archeological evidence suggests Erectus processed the hides of animals they hunted (evidence of clothing manufacture). Erectus is the inventor of the most durable tool made by human hands: the Acheulean hand axe. Variations of this design were used by humans as recently as 1,500 years ago. 
• As I pointed out elsewhere an intact hyoid bone was found in the fossilized remains of Erectus, proof these archaic humans could speak.
• Their cranial capacity was comparable to ours though the composition of their skulls suggests differences in brain structure. Our "flattened" faces, rounded brain case, and prominent forehead make room for the neocortex and robust frontal lobe. 
• The density of their bones compared to ours indicates that the average Erectus male was physically stronger than males of H. Sapiens. 

The Dmanisi find is remarkable because Erectus skulls were found in the same stratigraphical layer as skulls belonging to Habilis, proof that this diminutive lineage left Africa with Erectus. This raises all sorts of interesting possibilities. 

Edited August 13, 2020 by Marathoner
various typos and omissions

[Guest theElect777]

14 hours ago, one.opinion said:

We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged.

The “Dissent from Darwinism” is propaganda.

1. It reduces the theory of evolution to a straw man version that has been outdated since Kimura introduced the Neutral Theory - in 1968. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutral_theory_of_molecular_evolution) No expert scientist argues that random mutation and natural selection are sufficient by themselves.

2. All scientists SHOULD be skeptical - of any data. That is what peer review is all about.

3. “Careful examination of the evidence... should be encouraged.” There should be careful examination of ANY evidence for any type of science.

I personally know of people that have signed this statement, not knowing it was going to be used as Intelligent Design propaganda. As you can see, there is not a single part of the Dissent that even mentions ID.

Do you believe when the Word of God states we are MADE in the "image" and "likeness" of God much like the Angelic Host (remember they were able to reproduce with EARLY women to create Nephilim [Giants]) that God looks much like an Ape or more closer to the A. Afarensis?

 

You basically believe that God created the series of "events" that led to the multi Species of Ape and from there it became Habilis and Erectus and evolved to our stage.   So at which stage position is God at within the Evolutionary Chain to where we match His "image" and "likeness?"

Edited August 13, 2020 by theElect777

[one.opinion]

4 minutes ago, theElect777 said:

Do you believe when the Word of God states we are MADE in the "image" and "likeness" of God much like the Angelic Host (remember they were able to reproduce with EARLY women to create Nephilim [Giants]) that God looks much like an Ape or more closer to the A. Afarensis?

 

You basically believe that God created the series of "events" that led to the multi Species of Ape and from there it became Habilis and Erectus and evolved to our stage.   So at which stage position is God at within the Evolutionary Chain to where we match His "image" and "likeness?"

I don't see any connection between your reply and the post it is in reply to. How is this related to the Discovery Institute propaganda that is "The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism"?

In this thread, I'm attempting to address the scientific problems that people perceive with the theory of evolution. Would you not prefer to know the actual truth about the science, rather than a caricature and misinformation that is so common among otherwise well-meaning Christians?

If you want to discuss the theological ramifications and questions regarding the theory of evolution, please begin another thread. I would also be happy to communicate through private messages if you are truly curious about my thoughts.

[Guest theElect777]

1 minute ago, one.opinion said:

I don't see any connection between your reply and the post it is in reply to. How is this related to the Discovery Institute propaganda that is "The Scientific Dissent from Darwinism"?

In this thread, I'm attempting to address the scientific problems that people perceive with the theory of evolution. Would you not prefer to know the actual truth about the science, rather than a caricature and misinformation that is so common among otherwise well-meaning Christians?

If you want to discuss the theological ramifications and questions regarding the theory of evolution, please begin another thread. I would also be happy to communicate through private messages if you are truly curious about my thoughts.

I understood your post and accepted it.  I just moved on since we are trying to tie Creation to Evolution or vice a versa.   If we are made in God's "Image and Likeness," at which point in the progression of Evolution does this description within God's Word meet up in Evolution?

[Guest theElect777]

How is it that you teach Biology, believe in Evolution, but have never once wondered where the "Image and Likeness" of God fits at within the Process?   At what point does Evolution match what we shall see in God's Glory?   As an Ape or as a Man (Image/Likeness wise)?

[Guest theElect777]

I am being serious here.   I teach a combination of Mathematics/Metallurgy/Speeds & Feeds and I am always looking at the entire process from end to beginning.   I am able to see how each step within the process should look like.   If it does not match, I know someone has made an error.   I would think Evolution and being in the frame work of God's "Image and Likeness" has to be a given for any Teacher's/Instructor's thought process.   

Edited August 13, 2020 by theElect777

[David1701]

19 hours ago, one.opinion said:

There is no reason to believe that one of these would fully develop without the other, without going through the evolutionary process together.

However, blood (or blood-like fluids) are thought to be much older than complex vascular systems. Blood is very similar to fluid found in many other organisms, including insects, called hemolymph. Hemolymph is distributed throughout the bodies of insects (and many other animals) by hearts that are much simpler than our own. Insects have "open" circulatory systems, in contrast to our "closed" ones, in which the transporting fluid is carried by vessels, rather than washing through the entire body cavity.

https://indianapublicmedia.org/amomentofscience/a-bugs-gotta-have-heart.php#:~:text=Like all arthropods%2C insects have,side which moves this hemolymph.

It is interesting to guess how closed circulatory systems developed from open ones, but since these tissues are not preserved in fossils, the best we can do is look at comparative anatomy and comparative genetics to guess how this might have occurred. Here is a good article making those types of guesses.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5378490/

I forgot about the system in insects, until shortly after I'd posted; however, even with such a starting point, the odds against blood and blood vessels developing in such a way that both continue to be usable, while transitioning from an insect-like setup, and developing simultaneously must be off-the-charts astronomical (assuming that such a massive increase in genetic information were possible, which I don't believe for a moment).

This does highlight our different approaches, however: on the one hand, you believe that such a thing is not only possible, but actually happened, over millions of years; on the other hand, I believe that one kind does not change into another and never will (speciation does happen, but that is a separate issue).