Impossible evolutionary steps?

[Scott J]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
A close read of the article reveals that this actually supports evolution. The professor says

"All hominims appear to be a single gradually evolving lineage containing only one species at each point in time."

Take another look at my post.

This is an opinion, not a fact. The fact is that we have fossils from the same species from different parts of the world that have arbitrarily been placed into the model prescribed by evolution. There is NO evidential basis for saying that one of them represents an evolutionary step between any other two- such is the stuff of conjecture. All the evidence truly shows is variation within one species.

In addition the clarification afforded by this quote later in the article shows that in his opinion all of the fossils line up into a single lineage with only "one species [of human] at each point in time."

The key point being that it is an opinion... biased by a predetermined belief in evolution. IOW's, the evidence must fit the theory because the theory must be true.

The most you could take from this is that human evolution may have leaned more towards orthogenetic processes than cladogenetic which would be surprising.

I disagree completely. The "most" you can take from this is that these fossils represent the normal range of variation within a species and do not represent a mechanism for macroevolution at all. In fact, I could even claim that since these fossils support my contention of a larger range of genetic variability as you move back through history.

I am also curious about your definition of a small box. That would seem to me to be a fair sized box to hold at least 200 specimens.

Relative to what you consider "small" I suppose. You could quite possibly fit 200 partial skeletons into a single coffin. That to me is a "small box" when you are talking about millions of years of supposed evolution.

 

[UTEOTW]

You posted the reference. The guy who is making the claim says that his opinion is that all the fossils represent one lineage with one species at each point in time. His words. He also explicitly says that his opinion is that man evolved.

The variability that he was measturing was I think body mass and skull size. I don;t think there was anything else. So all this tells us is that for all the known human ancestors that their size fits on a bell curve. If I read it correctly, his caution is that we should be more picky about where we differentiate these fossils into species. Sometimes it is done based on size differences and he contends that these differences seem to be within the normal range of variability.

He does not seem to object to the classification of the ancestors into species based on anatomical differences. He seems to actually support that by saying he thinks there was one species at each point in time. I think this means that he accepts that they were different species. He also did not examine the anatomical differences that lead to classification of the species.

As i have said to you before, you don't have to accept the evidence. But there is also nothing in here to challenge the current theory with. Scientists just need to take heed of the study and differentiate the fossils with more weight on morphological details and less weight on gross features such as size. For example, I would predict that he thinks the "hobbits" recently found should be left as H. erectus and not placed in a new species. Anatomically they are dwarf H. erectus with a few diferences.

You referenced the guy. You can accept his word or not. If not, it is curious why you referenced him to begin with.

"In fact, I could even claim that since these fossils support my contention of a larger range of genetic variability as you move back through history.

Nope. He says one species at a time.

 

[Scott J]

I know you would love to minimize this info. However, here we have a leading expert from your side of the argument acknowledging that all hominims fall in the range of the homo sapien species.

How he interprets the history of the fossils is entirely separate from the factual truth that the fossil record does not indicate a necessity for different species since the first appearance of "man".

If pygmies were no longer around and a skull plus a fossilized leg from a bow-legged person were found, I have no doubt that this guy would try to place it somewhere in the supposed evolutionary chain.

All we have proof of out the fossil record is various fossils of possibly deformed individual hominims who all fit into the expect range of one species. This article affirms that.

 

[UTEOTW]

You are misreading it.

He says that the size of all the ancestors falls into a given range.

He says that there is "clear evidence of evolution, with substantial increases in both skull sizes and body-weight."

He says that "All hominims appear to be a single gradually evolving lineage containing only one species at each point in time."

Your source does not support your assertion.

"All we have proof of out the fossil record is various fossils of possibly deformed individual hominims who all fit into the expect range of one species."

Please show me anywhere in the article that the author said anything about the fossil ancestors being "deformed individual."

Please show me any deformity that results in the anatomy seen in the fossil ancesotrs.

 

[North Carolina Tentmaker]

UTEOTW, let me address two things you said. You said:

Light has a finite speed

Well I am not willing to accept that as a proven fact. I know that Barry Setterfield's hypothesis of c-decay is no longer considered viable there are several other theories about how the speed of light has changed over the history of the universe. Two models are currently put forth by Dr. J. W. Moffat of the University of Toronto's Physics department. To summarize Dr. Moffat

We are no longer required to satisfy Einstein's second postulate of special relativity.

Even Einstein himself acknowledged that as we approach the speed of light time changes and what is speed if not a measurement of distance traveled over time?

You asked:

It would be helpful if you could tell us just what kinds of things you think would affect the inside of a solid rock in such a way that the date would be changed. Without leaving a trace!

I would say the same kind of worldwide cataclysm that formed the mountains and the seas and changed our earth from the predeluvian tropical climate to the world we know today, Noah's flood. As for it not leaving a trace, it left lots of indications they are all around us. Because it was a worldwide event involving not only water but nuclear and volcanic activity it effected all of the minerals in the earth.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Bogus Claims of Creationist Lies

I always thought there was something wrong when I heard evolutionists firing off their claims that creationists are liars. They make these claims very frequently, but it doesn't match up with experience because all the creationists I know are honest, decent people (including creationist leaders and I know some of them as well).

When UTEOTW came up with his claims about creationist lies, it was an opportunity for me to investigate the matter further, so I asked him if he had approached any of the people personally, and confronted them with their lies, but he said he hadn't, and he didn't think it was necessary. I insisted that it was, and he said it had been done by others, so I asked for evidence of direct correspondence with the supposed liars. He stalled on it for a while, but after I had nagged him he eventually came up with some letters that had been written to AiG about K/Ar dating. However, these letters never contained any accusations of lies. They were critical of AiG, but that's all.

Then Paul of Eugene came to the rescue and said I should look for the phrase "misrepresenting reality". But it turned out that this phrase was not in any of the letters to AiG. Instead it was in a letter to a third party who was making some enquiries about AiG.

What should I do now? Should I wait for UTEOTW to send me some genuine letters, accusing AiG or some other creationist researchers of telling lies, or should I just give up? I think the latter, because I have found out what I wanted to know.

The perpetual claims that creationists are liars are just bogus. Evolutionists like to toss them around among each other, saying "Look, I've found another creationist lie", and they toss them in the path of unsuspecting creationists saying "Look, one of your creationist leaders has told lie", but they won't confront the people themselves, who are the supposed liars.

It's been a useful exercise, going round this loop with UTEOTW and [his comrade?] Paul of Eugene, because now I know what to say when I hear another accusation of creationist lies. "Bogus, bogus, it's all bogus".

Mike

 

[Phillip]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
A close read of the article reveals that this actually supports evolution. The professor says

"All hominims appear to be a single gradually evolving lineage containing only one species at each point in time."

from the article linked above

So, as you say he still accepts the origin as evolution. In addition the clarification afforded by this quote later in the article shows that in his opinion all of the fossils line up into a single lineage with only "one species [of human] at each point in time."

The most you could take from this is that human evolution may have leaned more towards orthogenetic processes than cladogenetic which would be surprising.

I am also curious about your definition of a small box. That would seem to me to be a fair sized box to hold at least 200 specimens.

That is NOT the point. We are not pointing out that the letter is against evolution.

The point is that an evolutionist has found information that causes a problem with the overall evolution theory as it has been understood by evolutionists.

How many more problems will be found in the next 100 years by scientists (evolutionary or not)?

 

[Phillip]

Everybody must understand that we are so isolated in this universe. We are trying to understand a universe that may be infinite, for all we know, that is so BIG that it is as if we are looking up at this universe from an atom on the head of a pin and trying to determine how it all came about.

We ASSUME that physical laws remain constant throughout this infinite universe. How do we know? We GUESS.

This would be like a flea sitting on the back of an elephant, trying to understand what the entire city where the zoo was located looked like. Then this flea would generate theories as to how his universe came to be. While he can't even see the tigers 300 yards distant. Let alone all of the buildings and residential houses in the city.

What do you think the world would look like to this flea? One big smelly, dirty, moving beast. His theories (like our theories) are essentially worthless when you realize that THIS is exactly how we have to view our universe. This flea's world-view would be quite limited. He can theorize all day and all night and never know that the buildings downtown house a corporation that owns the zoo, that broght the elephant from Asia and planted him in this little part of the world.

Our scientists and scholars have educated themselves to the point that they can do no wrong and they become gods in their own eyes and believe me, I have seen it in schools often. So, the flea writes more papers about his smelly world, so that he can get more grants from the other fleas on the elephant to allow him to stay on the elephant a while longer.

 

[UTEOTW]

"Well I am not willing to accept that as a proven fact. I know that Barry Setterfield's hypothesis of c-decay is no longer considered viable there are several other theories about how the speed of light has changed over the history of the universe. Two models are currently put forth by Dr. J. W. Moffat of the University of Toronto's Physics department. To summarize Dr. Moffat "

You are misapplying Moffat's hypothesis. He and a few others propose to solve some specific characteristics of the universe thorugh a change in the speed of light way back at the time of the Big Bang. Namely flatness and horizon aspects of the universe. Current theory holds that these are explained by inflation. He suggests that it might be possible to explain them alternatively by a higher speed of light, about 1000 times faster, in the earliest moments of the Big Bang. This really has no application to any young earth theories. Since the observations of supernova light curves showing the constant decay rates of isotopes well back into history are from well after the Big Bang, this is not a reason to doubt what I have said.

"I would say the same kind of worldwide cataclysm that formed the mountains and the seas and changed our earth from the predeluvian tropical climate to the world we know today, Noah's flood. As for it not leaving a trace, it left lots of indications they are all around us. Because it was a worldwide event involving not only water but nuclear and volcanic activity it effected all of the minerals in the earth."

That is a braod statement when I was looking for a specific answer.

We have rocks. The ratio of some isotopes change with time inside these rocks. What would change the inside of these rocks to make the date wrong and not leave a trace? Especially for methods like isochron dating where serveral different ratios are plotted and contamination would destroy the plot and not cause a wrong date.

 

[UTEOTW]

"It's been a useful exercise, going round this loop with UTEOTW and [his comrade?] Paul of Eugene, because now I know what to say when I hear another accusation of creationist lies. "Bogus, bogus, it's all bogus"."

That is interesting logic you have there whereby you determine that something is "bogus" because multiple people all say so. Very interesting insight, there.

"The perpetual claims that creationists are liars are just bogus. Evolutionists like to toss them around among each other, saying "Look, I've found another creationist lie", and they toss them in the path of unsuspecting creationists saying "Look, one of your creationist leaders has told lie", but they won't confront the people themselves, who are the supposed liars."

I agve you a specific example detailing multiple challenges. The false data remains in use. If you do a little digging, it is not hard to find anecdotes of pthers who have done the same thing to the same results. So it is a false claim to say that these guys have never been challenged.

Besides, you seem to be working under a false premise. I did not need anyone to blatently point out the mistakes. I found them on my own when as a young erather I went looking for YE material. The mistakes were not hard to miss.

But, again, it is good to know that you spent time looking into matters and found that I was not the only person that thought these guys are dishonest. In some leap of logic this means that you can dismiss the items detailed for you. It might have been more useful if you were to have researched the examples provided more thoroughly and perhaps tried to present to us a logical reason why these guys were not misrepresenting the data. I even provided you with sufficient references to easily find their original claims. That would not have been much work. I can only assume that if you did look into it that you were unable to find any justification so instead you go back to trying to discredit the messenger. But I have had that suspicion all along. You have worked too hard to try and distract from the items presented and detailed for you not to think that there may be a basis behind my claims.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

On the rare occasions when evolutionists are prepared to confront creationists with their supposed "lies", the logic goes something like this:

"I'm right and you are wrong.
But you knew that, didn't you?
But you didn't say so, did you?
So you are a liar."

Mike

 

[UTEOTW]

I think I did a fair job of pointing you to the YE leaders actual words, pointing out where they referenced material that contradict them showing that they were aware of what they were doing, and pointing out their mistakes, and then tying together how their mistakes combine with the contradictory material that they acknowledge having read and how I feel that it adds up to deliberate misrepresentation. If I failed to do so, then point it out, as I have asked you to do repeatedly. But so far you sem interested in doing only what you must to avoid such looks at the tactics of the YE leaders.

 

[Mike Gascoigne]

Originally posted by UTEOTW:
I think...

You must have the last word, mustn't you. I'm tired of all this.

Mike

 

[OldRegular]

To put this entire argument in perspective the concept of macro-evolution is untrue and is built on a fabric of untruth and deception. It denies the Word of God and for Christians to espouse this untrue concept is to bring disrepute upon the Triune God.

Evolutionist A. J. Mattell puts the untrue concept of macro-evolution in proper perspective when he writes:

“Those liberal and neo-orthodox Christians who regard the creation stories as myths or allegories are undermining the rest of Scripture, for if there was no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell, there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam and Incarnate Savior, crucified and risen. As a result the whole biblical system of salvation collapses. .... Evolution thus becomes the most potent weapon for destroying the Christian faith.”

 

[HankD]

OK you evolutionists, you win!

I believe you. You all descended from baboons.

Just kidding.

HankD

 

[blackbird]

Boys! Lets go back to OldRegular's post(two posts up) where the famous evolutionist A J Mattell is quoted---and in that quote Mattell says

". . .for if there were no Adam there was no fall; and if there was no fall, there was no hell; and if there was no hell there was no need of Jesus as Second Adam . . ."

Whats wrong with this statement??

1) There was a fall before there was an Adam

2) Had Adam never sinned---there would still have been a hell

3) Jesus was Second Adam before Adam was Adam

Blackbird

 

[UTEOTW]

"Evolutionist A. J. Mattell puts the untrue concept of macro-evolution in proper perspective when he writes"

Funny, I can't find an "Evolutionist A. J. Mattell." That, of course, does not mean that one does not exist.

I can find a reference to Dr. A. J. Mattill Jr., retired professor of New Testament at Winebrenner Theological Seminary. Is this who your are refering to? That does change the context a bit.

Also, last time you posted this another posted requested a different point of clarification. He said "This quote is inaccurate! Please either post the correct quote or retract this quote altogether."

Can you shed some additional light here? Maybe a reference of where he said it and an in context quote.

 

[Benfranklin403]

"The perpetual claims that creationists are liars are just bogus. Evolutionists like to toss them around among each other, saying "Look, I've found another creationist lie", and they toss them in the path of unsuspecting creationists saying "Look, one of your creationist leaders has told lie", but they won't confront the people themselves, who are the supposed liars."
..............................................
A lie is of course a falsehood made intentionally. That is hard to prove. What is not hard to prove is that a great deal of information put out by creationists is false. I could give a whole raft of examples but will mention one of the most common here. It is the often told falsehood that there is circular reasoning in regard to dating fossils. It is said by creationists that main stream science, that is evolutionists, date the rocks by the fossils and the fossils by the rocks.
It is rather strange that they consider scientists that stupid because the general opinion is that scientists are anything but stupid. But the fact is that this claim by creationists is a falsehood that they copy from each other and circulate endlessly -without doing the research necessary to verify the claim. If you have read much creationist literature, you will have encountered this claim.

This false claim implies that there are mistakes in the dating process. What you will not find in the claims by creationists are any specific instances of mistakes made by such circular reasoning. For those who accept the idea that creationists are correct in this claim, I challenge you to point out the specific fossils or specific layer that has been dated erroneously by this circular reasoning. You will search the creationist literature in vain for such specific instances, but it is quite easy to find the claim. The stupidity here lies entirely with such creationist claims. If this claim is in truth a problem for evolution, there must be mistakes in dating due to "circular reasoning". It is reasonable for the opposition to ask for details of these mistakes. Where are the mistaken dates created by "circular reasoning". Be specific or admit that this is a bogus creationist claim.

 

[Benfranklin403]

Another bogus tactic of creationists is quote mining. Quote mining is perhaps the most commmon tactic of creationists. They love to quote evolutionists so that the effect is to give the appearance that even major scientists don't believe evolution or that they admit some major problem with it.

The problem with quote mining is that creationists copy other creationists without going to the original source. Quite often the quote gets mangled beyond recognition or the fact that it is quoted out of context produces errors in the interpretation of the quote. It is misrepresentation by negligence. This is quite common in creationist circles. I will give an example in the next post.

 

[Deacon]

One of the reasons that atheistic evolutionists encourage a literal seven-day creation period is not because they are great biblical interpreters but because it makes it so much easier for them to dismiss Christianity entirely.

Rob