Darwin's Illusion

[Dan From Smithville]

2 of 2

8- Britanica.com shows the human lineage as follows:
human evolution | History, Stages, Timeline, Tree, Chart, & Facts
human evolution | History, Stages, Timeline, Tree, Chart, & Facts


8.1-Australopithecus afarensis (Lucy), the most famous specimen of Australopithecus is “Lucy,” (the specimen included several hundred fragments of bones collected over three weeks that may or may not be from a single individual) from Ethiopia that has been dated to 3.2 mya.

Here is how Britanica currently identify it “GROUP OF EXTINCT PRIMATES CLOSELY RELATED TO, IF NOT ACTUALLY ANCESTORS OF, MODERN HUMAN BEINGS"
Australopithecus | Characteristics & Facts

- In May 1999, the well-recognized Science et Vie journal used the title "Adieu Lucy" (Goodbye Lucy) on its cover and wrote that the apes of the Australopithecus genus should be removed from human genealogy.


- April 17, 2007, PNAS wrote “This particular morphology appears also in Australopithecus robustus. The presence of the morphology in both the latter and Au. afarensis and its absence in modern humans cast doubt on the role of Au. afarensis as a modern human ancestor."
https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0606454104

- Apr 2020, ScienceAdvances wrote” Contrary to previous claims, sulcal imprints reveal an ape-like brain organization and no features derived toward humans.”
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aaz4729


**LUCY IS AN EXTINCT PRIMATE THAT IS WITH NO CLEAR EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY ITS CONSIDERATION AS AN ANCESTOR, YET IT'S STILL USED IN SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES AS A HUMAN FOREBEAR.**

8.2- Homo habilis (Handy Man) lived 2.4 million to 1.4 million years ago in Eastern and Southern Africa

- Apr 1999, Science wrote:
“We present a revised definition, based on verifiable criteria, for Homo and conclude that two species, Homo habilis and Homo rudolfensis, do not belong in the genus.”

“Thus, H. habilis and H. rudolfensis (or Homo habilis sensu lato who do not subscribe to the taxonomic subdivision of “early Homo”) should be removed from Homo."

“Both H. habilis and H. rudolfensis should be transferred to the genus Australopithecus “ see 8.1 above for Australopithecus
https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/science.284.5411.65?download=true

- January 2000, MBE published an article stating:
“This may seem to be an unexpected statement, because for 3 decades habiline species have been interpreted as being just such transitional taxa, linking Australopithecus through the habilines to later Homo species. But with a few exceptions, the known habiline specimens are now recognized to be less than 2 Myr old (Feibel, Brown, and McDougall 1989 ) and therefore are too recent to be transitional forms leading to H. sapiens.”
Population Bottlenecks and Pleistocene Human Evolution

- Jun 17, 2011, Science wrote:
“Who Was Homo habilis—And Was It Really Homo?”
“In the past decade, Homo habilis's status as the first member of our genus has been undermined"
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.332.6036.1370

**EVEN SO H. HABILIS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS A TRANSITIONAL FORM LEADING TO H. SAPIENS BUT YET HOMO HABILIS IS STILL USED IN SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES AS A HUMAN FOREBEAR. **

8.3- Homo erectus (sometimes called Homo ergaster) lived between about 1.89 million and 110,000 years ago in Africa and Asia.

- 1994, Courier Forschungsinstitut Senckenberg published a research with the title

“The Case for Sinking Homo erectus”

The group of researchers from USA, Australia, Czech Republic & China said:
" There is no distinct boundary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens in time or space”

“There is no speciation involved in the emergence of Homo sapiens from Homo erectus. These reasons combine to require that the lineage be regarded as a single evolutionary species.”
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Milford-Wolpoff/publication/285136980_The_case_for_sinking_Homo_erectus_100_years_of_Pithecanthropus_is_enough/links/5954eda6458515bbaa21e15f/The-case-for-sinking-Homo-erectus-100-years-of-Pithecanthropus-is-enough.pdf

- October 1997, Nature wrote:
“ Even with the discovery of Neanderthal genetic material, we still cannot decide whether the Neanderthals were one of several related species in an extinct radiation, a single species close to our own, or a ‘race’ of H. sapiens (with that species redefined to include 2 myr old H. erectus).”
One skull does not a species make - Nature.

- June 22, 2015, LiveScience wrote:
“The lineage and evolutionary history of H. erectus and other Homo species is unclear, and has been muddied further by recent finds.”

“Confusing matters more, after analyzing a new skull — called Skull 5 — in 2013, researchers made the controversial argument in the journal Science that various contemporary Homo species, including Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilis and possibly Homo ergaster, were actually Homo erectus.”

“Scientists also don't agree on whether H. erectus is a direct human ancestor to Homo sapiens.”
Homo Erectus: Facts About the 'Upright Man'


**EVEN SO H. SAPIENS WAS REDEFINED TO INCLUDE H. ERECTUS AS A SINGLE EVOLUTIONARY SPECIES BUT YET H. ERECTUS IS STILL USED IN SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES AS A HUMAN FOREBEAR. **


8.4- Homo neanderthalensis (Neanderthal) lived about 400,000 - 40,000 years ago in Europe and southwestern to central Asia.

- April 2014, a study published on PLOS ONE based on 151 earlier papers about the Neanderthal, showed that Neanderthals were not less intelligent than modern human.

“archaeologists’ characterizations of Neandertals as cognitively inferior to modern humans have created an interpretive framework within which subtle biological differences between Neandertals and modern humans tend to be overinterpreted”

“archeological record was not different enough to support the purported cognitive “gap” between them and their contemporary modern humans.”
Neandertal Demise: An Archaeological Analysis of the Modern Human Superiority Complex

- June 2020, a study published on the Royal Society showed that Neanderthal and anatomically modern humans (AMH) were capable of interbreeding to produce fertile offspring.
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2020.0690#d1e1039

Neanderthals were not less intelligent than modern human; their brains were just as large as ours and often larger. Neanderthals practiced same sophisticated and symbolic behavior like modern humans. Neanderthals were homogeneous species capable of interbreeding with AMH. Neanderthals genome sequence showed same 99.7% genetic material of modern humans, meaning Neanderthals were humans and most importantly they were not human ancestors.


**EVEN SO NEANDERTHALS WERE NEITHER TRANSITIONAL FORMS LEADING TO H. SAPIENS NOR HUMAN ANCESTORS, YET NEANDERTHALS ARE STILL SHOWN OR IMPLIED TO BE AS SUCH IN SCIENTIFIC REFERENCES.**

ALL OF THESE SPECIMENS WERE EITHER PRIMATES LIKE THE CASE OF “AUSTRALOPITHECUS AFARENSIS” OR ACTUAL HUMAN LIKE “HOMO NEANDERTHALENSIS”. THERE IS NO EVOLUTIONARY TREE, NO TRANSITIONAL SPECIES, AND NO COMMON ANCESTOR OTHER THAN IMAGINATION AND WISHFUL THINKING. GREAT MINDS AND GREAT EFFORTS ARE WASTED, EVEN SO REAL WORLD DATA NEVER SUPPORTED THE PREDICTIONS OF THE TOE BUT UNDER THE FALSE NOTION THAT ONLY ONE (UNFALSIFIABLE) HYPOTHESIS IS POSSIBLE, THEN ALL OBSERVATIONS HAD TO BE INTERPRETED TO FIT THIS HYPOTHESIS.

I don't know what you think this means, but I don't know that anyone is claiming definitively that we know our evolutionary lineage. I don't know that they ever have.

Why do you have to pump so much into posts and why all the bolded caps? Are you angry?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Casey Luskin may have been some inspiration for this thread with his book "Darwin's Doubts" You can see it and Casey ripped to shreds in this video:

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why not? Why the chimps survived but other claimed closer relatives (higher than the chimp) went extinct? Per the ToE, foundational species that remain reproductively successful within its niche should not go extinct just because new variants emerged. All successful variants would have their chance of survival.

If the ToE predictions are true, then we should see large number of successful variants alive, even larger number of variants (both successful and unsuccessful/extinct variants) should be found in the fossil record. In the real world, neither is true. Real world data clearly disprove the theory. See #112



The Human-Chimpanzee Last Common Ancestor "HC-LCA" (the alleged species from which the hominin lineage and the chimpanzee lineage diverged) is nothing but a hypothesis without any evidence other than wishful thinking.

Again, why all alleged transitional hominid forms went extinct but the chimp survived? Foundational species shouldn’t go extinct merely because a new variant emerged.

The hypothesized macroevolution through gradual continuous transitional sequences (on the basis that advantageous random mutations would have better survival chance) necessitates the existence of enormous number of transitional forms. The fossil record clearly proves that the hypothesis is false.

What is your basis for claiming that we should see numerous species occupying the same niches? What is success in a niche? Large numbers. Long lineage? What do you mean by that?

Speciation would occur under selection which means something changed or a species expanded to new territory or a barrier separated species.

Your scenario of multiple occupancy doesn't make any sense.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Why not? Why the chimps survived but other claimed closer relatives (higher than the chimp) went extinct? Per the ToE, foundational species that remain reproductively successful within its niche should not go extinct just because new variants emerged. All successful variants would have their chance of survival.

If the ToE predictions are true, then we should see large number of successful variants alive, even larger number of variants (both successful and unsuccessful/extinct variants) should be found in the fossil record. In the real world, neither is true. Real world data clearly disprove the theory. See #112



The Human-Chimpanzee Last Common Ancestor "HC-LCA" (the alleged species from which the hominin lineage and the chimpanzee lineage diverged) is nothing but a hypothesis without any evidence other than wishful thinking.

Again, why all alleged transitional hominid forms went extinct but the chimp survived? Foundational species shouldn’t go extinct merely because a new variant emerged.

The hypothesized macroevolution through gradual continuous transitional sequences (on the basis that advantageous random mutations would have better survival chance) necessitates the existence of enormous number of transitional forms. The fossil record clearly proves that the hypothesis is false.

What is the chimp a foundational species for?

 

[LIIA]

Such a succession of long posts due to incorrect reading of what I wrote. Did I say that they were our ancestors? I said 'relatives', cousins, closer than apes, orangutans and chimps. Read my post again.

I’m well aware of what you said. The first thing I checked was “your selection of words”.

No, you didn’t say that ‏they were our ancestors. Simply because you’re aware that THEY ARE NOT. There is no evidence that any ancestor ever existed.

Evolutionists avoid the word ancestor because they know that they can be proven wrong. That’s why the word relative is typically used.

The absence of ancestors or transitional forms in the fossil record leading to H. sapiens, means that the alleged evolutionary development is false, even the alleged relationship to H. sapiens becomes baseless.

The info in #331 & #332 was not only for you but also for everyone else who wants to know about these meaningless names of alleged transitional forms that evolutionists keep repeating without understanding.

Simply, the absence of any transitional forms to H. Sapiens, necessarily means that the predictions of the ToE don’t match the real world observations in the fossil record. The ToE is proven false.

 

[ppp]

Simply, the absence of any transitional forms to H. Sapiens, necessarily means that the predictions of the ToE don’t match the real world observations in the fossil record. The ToE is proven false.

The transitional form between what specific species and homo sapiens?

 

[LIIA]

That is a wrong reading of ToE. The raptors went extinct but the birds which evolved from them exist today. In our case also from what we evolved did not survive.

This is not my reading. This is what the ToE entails. You simply don’t know, you make an assumption of your own reading and want to impose it as a fact.

"The evolutionary history of the primates can be traced back 57-85/90 million years. One of the oldest known primate-like mammal species, Plesiadapis, came from North America; another, Archicebus, came from China."
Evolution of primates - Wikipedia
(click the links to see their fossils)

Nice fossils! They’re extinct primates. What is the point? What is that got to do with H. Sapiens? These species are neither ancestors nor transitional forms to H. Sapiens. Is it?

What you all fail to understand is “primates fossils are for primates”, “ human fossils are for humans”. The point is, there is no transitional forms to H. Sapiens ever found other than some wishful thinking.

 

[LIIA]

Wrong again. You do not know your own book. It is 15.26, Surah Al-Hijr.

Indeed, it is surah Al-Hijr. For clarification, This is Section (Juz) 14, Verse (Ayah) 26, Chapter (Surah) 15. I was referring to Section 14 but you’re right to refer to Surah 15.

It is not only possible. It actually happened that way only.

False.

You make an unfalsifiable hypothesis (the only way), you don’t support it with evidence (none), and then you call it science. No, it's not.

Hypothesized emergence of a living cell (complex internally intelligent system) through slow random process from nonliving mater is not possible unless abiogenesis is resolved.

Tell it gets proven (not hypothesized) that a single living cell can be created from non-living chemical system, you don’t have any argument other than imagination and wishful thinking.

Have you heard of self-replication of molecules? See RNA - Wikipedia, RNA virus - Wikipedia and Bacteria - Wikipedia. These organisms lie between the non-living and the living oganisms, can be classified as any. Under suitable conditions, an RNA virus can live for any period of time.

Ok, you have seen some nice info on Wiki but what’s your point (if any)?Do you even understand the info that you’re referencing?

A bacterium is a LIVING CELL capable of reproducing. RNA is a polymeric molecule within the LIVING CELL and involved in gene expression and synthesis of proteins.

A Virus is an extremely complex three-dimensional network structure. Its not considered alive. Even so it can exist outside the host but CANNOT REPLICATE till it invades the host (LIVING CELL) and insert its genetic material into the cell’s DNA to trick it into making copies of itself. It can only replicate within a LIVING CELL.

That ability of a virus to survive outside the living cell/host depends on how long the extremely complex structure of a virus stays intact. Any slight disruption to the three-dimensional network of its structure will render the virus incapable of invading the host cells.

Heat, evaporation of embedded water in its structure, oxygen reaction, ultraviolet light, etc. can very easily disrupt the virus structure. That is why the viability of a virus to cause an infection wanes with time and stays infectious only for several hours to days.

Again, what’s your point?

I think you know some thing of science but are willfully ignoring its implications. Scientists have created living cells. Read about them here: Scientists Create Simple Synthetic Cell That Grows and Divides Normally

No, they didn’t, its nothing but some nonsense to mislead the uninformed reader.

Creating a living cell necessarily means to create a cell from nonliving matter, which never happened, abiogenesis was never and will never be resolved, neither in nature nor in the lab.

What the scientists did was simply genetic manipulations of a bacterium by adding and removing genes. The group leader Elizabeth Strychalski said “Life is still a black box,” yet you say they created a living cell.

Manipulation of existing life is not a creation of life. Don’t get me wrong, these are brilliant scientists and a great achievement but with respect to creating a living cell, it’s only an extremely tiny step towards the impossible.

Again, abiogenesis is not and will never be resolved. Until you prove otherwise, you don’t have an argument.

Take care, be sure of what you post, don't write silly things.

it's ok if you share info that you saw online but first you should understand it and it should be meaningful. Take care.

 

[LIIA]

It is. You called non-ID change "random change". That is a strawman argument. Just because an intelligence is not behind a change does not make it random. Of a rock comes loose on a slope does it go in a random direction?

This is a misleading irrelevant oversimplification (strawman argument). You are talking about the order seen in the action of an entity driven by a law of nature. Individual action of an entity driven by a natural force is never random but collectively, multiple entities driven by different natural forces would very well have random relationships in relation to each other unless the actions of these different forces are precisely coordinated towards a goal.

Causeless free action does not exist in nature. Every single action is caused but unless a group of actions are calibrated and all entities are quantified in a controlled manner in relation to each other, you will never end up with an intelligent (engineered) product.

A group of people may throw rocks forever, even so the movement of each individual rock is controlled by an individual person but unless all these individual persons precisely coordinate their efforts in a specific intelligent manner, they will never end up with “Sagrada Familia” it will always be a pile of rocks.

What you’re talking about is order. Order is a component of intelligence (if the individual actions are collectively calibrated towards a goal). A factory may include multiple machines, order is clearly manifested in the action of each single machine but unless all machines are working together in a controlled/coordinated manner, the end result will never be an intelligent product.

An intelligent complex change is never a product of single process/single entity (as per your analogy) but rather a coordinated multiple processes/multiple entities.

A complex change can be logically classified as either Intentional/Intelligently-Guided Change “A” or Non-Intentional/Non-Intelligently-Guided Change (Random Change) “B”. If the change doesn’t fit in category (B), then it has to be in category (A). Its not logical to say its neither (A) nor (B).

Don't accuse others of being illogical when that appears to be what you are doing. You are apparently assuming that there is an intelligence behind change. Where is your evidence for this?

Everything, from an intelligently fine-tuned universe to a single living cell. Even in nonliving matter at the atomic and molecular level. See # 226, # 236 and # 252.

Every single example of calibrated processes/quantified entities acting towards a complex change is a manifestation of intelligence; It’s never a product of randomness.

I doubt if you even understand the concept of scientific evidence. By the way, we should discuss that. Scientific evidence is well defined and has very reasonable standards. Its main objective is to avoid irrational thought.

I’ve been discussing that with gnostic. Feel free to provide your input.

Those supporting evolution are not guilty of that.

Proponents of evolution are guilty of supporting a single unfalsifiable hypothesis without providing evidence. This is not science.

That was why I pointed out the problem that you are largely basing your beliefs on untestable claims.

I’m not.

Observations confirmed the notion of “ Intelligently Guided Change”. That was already established but the issue is that it’s not on the table as the second competing option.

A single unfalsifiable option is not science. A competing option is required to make the other falsifiable. Consistency of observations with one hypothesis would render the other false.

In the sciences using untestable claims is not allowed.

Its allowed in “evolutionary biology” That is why its not science but rather “Geisteswissenschaften”. See# 331

I think that you need to spend some time learning the basics of science. That would be understanding the scientific method and also the concept of scientific evidence. If those supporting evolution did not follow those rules they would be laughed at too.

You’re not making an argument here but rather some arrogant/ignorant statements.

Indeed, those supporting evolution did not follow those rules. The rules are different in the case of “evolutionary biology” It’s only your wishful thinking. Your presupposition of the contrary is not allowing you to see it.

See#326, #327 and #331, read it, understand it and let’s talk.

So first get rid of your strawman argument. Natural change is not random change. Just because you or I may not understand a change does not make it random

Natural changes are caused. It’s never random but individual caused entities (driven by different natural forces) can very well have random relationships among each other.

You may be confused a bit because mutations are generally random.

Mutations are never random. I explained that multiple times. Here it is once more:

Cells have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur. Experiments demonstrated that cells come up repeatedly with just the right ‘adaptive’ or ‘directed’ mutations in specific genes that enable the cells to grow and multiply.

Non-Random Directed Mutations were confirmed.
“Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating mutations are involved that appear to be under the control of the cell or organism as a whole in different environmental contexts”
Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed (i-sis.org.uk)

2012 Suzhou, China, In the international conference of physiological sciences, Denis Noble said “It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns of change”
Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

2013 Birmingham, UK, as the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), Denis Noble confirmed the same in his lecture which was published in the journal Experimental Physiology, see the links below
Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology - YouTube


In an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.”
How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

2016 “New Trend in Evolutionary Biology” conference in the Royal Society meeting, Gerd B. Müller discussed the challenges of MS theory and the need for the EES. The extended evolutionary synthesis acknowledges developmental bias as one of the core assumptions.

He said, “Before natural selection can act, the developmental system harbours tendencies towards certain solutions, a property that has been called developmental bias”

Here the article by Gerd B. Müller that was published on 2017.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)

The two mechanisms are variation, which is random, and natural selection. Which is not random.

Natural selection may operate as a purifying but not a creative force. Mutation is the creative force, mutations are never random (micro adaptation).

In the claimed evolutionary process; natural selection allows a better survival chance for advantageous random mutations. In the actual adaptation process, cells utilize mechanisms for choosing which mutations (as shown above) will occur to allow an organism a better survival chance within a specific environment. The process is quite different.

Let's go back to our rock rolling down a hill. The terrain and objects that the rock strikes will put some random elements to the direction of the rock, but it is going to go generally downhill. but there never is a need to invoke an Intelligent Mover of the rock in getting it to its final resting place.

This is a strawman argument. Again, actions are not random; causes control all actions, which is manifested as order. You may predict where some rocks rolling downhill will end up. But you can never predict that some entities (of different material) moving downhill, struck by a lightening, tornado, earthquake, volcanic lava will end up downhill as a “Mercedes Benz”. If a complex unpredictable change happens, it’s not simply the expected order of an action driven by a natural force, it’s a manifestation of intelligence.

You need to put things into perspective. A single living cell is the most complex designed system man has ever witnessed which excels in every sense anything can be ever produced by the intelligence of man. Neither a Mercedes Benz nor the most complex engineered structure by man compares to a single living cell. See # 236

Your Body's Molecular Machines - YouTube

DNA animations by wehi.tv for Science-Art exhibition - YouTube

You cannot compare the claimed emergence of an extremely complex living cell from nonliving matter to the mere predictability of a rock movement downhill. This is a strawman argument.

For the sake of argument, even if scientists somehow managed to create a living cell in a controlled lab environment directly from nonliving matter (which didn’t and will never happen), then intelligence is still invoked in the process let alone that the controlled lab conditions may not be attainable in nature. Until that happen, Abiogenesis will continue to be a baseless hypothesis without any evidence let alone that it’s the only option on the table, meaning unfalsifiable. Yet you call it a “scientific method”. It’s not.

The scientific method was neither followed in Abiogenesis nor “Evolutionary Biology”. That is why Ernst Mayr said that it’s not exact science and should be included with “Geisteswissenschaften”. See# 331

 

[LIIA]

What is your point here? None of these references indicate that evolution is not taking place or that humans didn't evolve. It just looks like details and discussion about details.

What argument of your does this support?

My point is that real world evidence in the fossil record don’t support the predictions of the ToE. The specimens found are neither transitional forms leading to H. sapiens nor have any evolutionary development relationship.

Real world data do not support the hypothesized macroevolution through gradual, continuous transitional sequences. The hypothesis is false.

 

[LIIA]

I don't know what you think this means, but I don't know that anyone is claiming definitively that we know our evolutionary lineage. I don't know that they ever have.

See # 350

This is exactly the point “ they don’t know”, but the general understanding that many uninformed evolutionists get from the scientific references is that transitional forms have been identified in a linear progression along the evolutionary development line towards H. Sapiens. It’s not true.

See the example of Dave in #342, he makes the false assertion that the ToE made accurate predictions of transitional forms leading to H. Sapiens consistent with actual findings in the fossil record, unaware of the fact that not even a SINGLE specimen was scientifically established as a transitional form leading to H. Sapiens. That is why latest evolutionary tree now shows relatives (to imply some sort of unkown relationship) not ancestors.

Why do you have to pump so much into posts and why all the bolded caps? Are you angry?

Most readers would scan quickly through a long post and may miss the important details. Bolded caps are intended to get the reader’s attention to important details, which would help them to get the point. It didn’t work in your case but hopefully others will get it.

 

[LIIA]

Casey Luskin may have been some inspiration for this thread with his book "Darwin's Doubts" You can see it and Casey ripped to shreds in this video:

Some more nonsensical propaganda (intended to deceive uninformed viewers) of the typical fallacious type “we know, they don’t, we follow science, they don’t” what an ignorant childish argument!!

Even when trying to touch on matters of substance Dave presents obsolete views a 100 or 50 years old that have been proven false. You need to wake up. These views have been changed.

He claims that evolutionary biology makes accurate predictions of a variety of hominid forms (transitional forms leading to H. Sapiens) consistent with actual findings/ investigation. What a lie!! Not a SINGLE specimen was scientifically established as a transitional form to H. Sapiens.

All this fuss about Lucy and he is ignorant of the fact that the “Australopithecus afarensis" genus (not only lucy) has been ruled out as a transitional form/ancestor of H. Sapiens. Wake up; Lucy is an extinct primate not an ancestor. None of the other specimens is.

What is making the assertion that “Australopithecus afarensis" is an extinct ape or "Homo erectus” is fully human is the real science based on evidence. See#326 and #327 (Not the opinion of Discovery Institute). But what is making the false claim that transitional hominid forms exist is the “Geisteswissenschaften” not the scientific evidence. See#331.

The only truth is when Dave honestly said about himself in 24:50 that he is not at all qualified. Yet Dave is been cited as a credible reference. How pathetic?

Here is what scientists had to say:

Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.)

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Stephen J Gould

It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. (Dr. Mark McMenamin, Paleontologist, 2013)

Ernst Mayr,(Darwin of the 20th century) Said:
“The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

“evolutionary biology has developed its own methodology, that of historical narratives, to obtain its answers, particularly in cases where experiments are inappropriate.”

“evolutionary biology” is not an exact science, it should be included with “the Geisteswissenschaften”

Will you guys ever wake up? Everything you argue about has been proven false with solid evidence and you still cannot wrap your heads around it. If you cannot admit it in public, just admit it to yourselves. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s never about winning an argument. Don’t be a blind follower and get the facts straight for yourselves. Wake up.

 

[LIIA]

What is your basis for claiming that we should see numerous species occupying the same niches? What is success in a niche? Large numbers. Long lineage? What do you mean by that?

Speciation would occur under selection which means something changed or a species expanded to new territory or a barrier separated species.

Your scenario of multiple occupancy doesn't make any sense.

As I said, success means that the species remain reproductively successful. Selection acts on present circumstances not a future promise. Mutation is the force for a change not selection (selection is a purifying but not a creative force). If mutation causes a variant A to emerge within a niche and A is now better fitted for this niche than a competitor B, A will expand into B’s niche only if B dies out for some reason but B should not go extinct just because a new variant emerged. As long as ecological conditions/resources remain tolerable, a reproductively successful species B should not go extinct. Variants may expand to new territories within a geographical range but can very well coexist.

The hypothesized gradual continuous transitional sequences predicts that variants would emerge randomly but only advantageous variants would be able to leave more offspring and may gradually become the dominant variant, its a slow process during which, original species continue to exist as long as it remain reproductively successful.

The point is, it’s not as simple as A appeared, B disappeared. Per the ToE theory, multiple variants may emerge but only the advantageous ones would gradually become the dominant.

 

[LIIA]

The transitional form between what specific species and homo sapiens?

Between the alleged " Last Common Ancestor, HC-LCA” and H. sapiens (as shown on the alleged human evolutionary family tree). there are no evidence for HC-LCA or for any transitional forms leading to H. sapiens.

 

[Subduction Zone]

This is a misleading irrelevant oversimplification (strawman argument). You are talking about the order seen in the action of an entity driven by a law of nature. Individual action of an entity driven by a natural force is never random but collectively, multiple entities driven by different natural forces would very well have random relationships in relation to each other unless the actions of these different forces are precisely coordinated towards a goal.

Causeless free action does not exist in nature. Every single action is caused but unless a group of actions are calibrated and all entities are quantified in a controlled manner in relation to each other, you will never end up with an intelligent (engineered) product.

A group of people may throw rocks forever, even so the movement of each individual rock is controlled by an individual person but unless all these individual persons precisely coordinate their efforts in a specific intelligent manner, they will never end up with “Sagrada Familia” it will always be a pile of rocks.

What you’re talking about is order. Order is a component of intelligence (if the individual actions are collectively calibrated towards a goal). A factory may include multiple machines, order is clearly manifested in the action of each single machine but unless all machines are working together in a controlled/coordinated manner, the end result will never be an intelligent product.

An intelligent complex change is never a product of single process/single entity (as per your analogy) but rather a coordinated multiple processes/multiple entities.

A complex change can be logically classified as either Intentional/Intelligently-Guided Change “A” or Non-Intentional/Non-Intelligently-Guided Change (Random Change) “B”. If the change doesn’t fit in category (B), then it has to be in category (A). Its not logical to say its neither (A) nor (B).



Everything, from an intelligently fine-tuned universe to a single living cell. Even in nonliving matter at the atomic and molecular level. See # 226, # 236 and # 252.

Every single example of calibrated processes/quantified entities acting towards a complex change is a manifestation of intelligence; It’s never a product of randomness.



I’ve been discussing that with gnostic. Feel free to provide your input.



Proponents of evolution are guilty of supporting a single unfalsifiable hypothesis without providing evidence. This is not science.



I’m not.

Observations confirmed the notion of “ Intelligently Guided Change”. That was already established but the issue is that it’s not on the table as the second competing option.

A single unfalsifiable option is not science. A competing option is required to make the other falsifiable. Consistency of observations with one hypothesis would render the other false.



Its allowed in “evolutionary biology” That is why its not science but rather “Geisteswissenschaften”. See# 331



You’re not making an argument here but rather some arrogant/ignorant statements.

Indeed, those supporting evolution did not follow those rules. The rules are different in the case of “evolutionary biology” It’s only your wishful thinking. Your presupposition of the contrary is not allowing you to see it.

See#326, #327 and #331, read it, understand it and let’s talk.



Natural changes are caused. It’s never random but individual caused entities (driven by different natural forces) can very well have random relationships among each other.



Mutations are never random. I explained that multiple times. Here it is once more:

Cells have mechanisms for choosing which mutations will occur. Experiments demonstrated that cells come up repeatedly with just the right ‘adaptive’ or ‘directed’ mutations in specific genes that enable the cells to grow and multiply.

Non-Random Directed Mutations were confirmed.
“Mutations are highly non-random and directed; numerous mechanisms for generating mutations are involved that appear to be under the control of the cell or organism as a whole in different environmental contexts”
Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed (i-sis.org.uk)

2012 Suzhou, China, In the international conference of physiological sciences, Denis Noble said “It is difficult (if not impossible) to find a genome change operator that is truly random in its action within the DNA of the cell where it works. All careful studies of mutagenesis find statistically significant non-random patterns of change”
Non-Random Directed Mutations Confirmed. - YouTube

2013 Birmingham, UK, as the President of the International Union of Physiological Sciences (IUPS), Denis Noble confirmed the same in his lecture which was published in the journal Experimental Physiology, see the links below
Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology - Noble - 2013 - Experimental Physiology - Wiley Online Library

Physiology is rocking the foundations of evolutionary biology (wiley.com)

Physiology moves back onto centre stage: a new synthesis with evolutionary biology - YouTube


In an article dated 2013, James A. Shapiro said, “Research dating back to the 1930s has shown that genetic change is the result of cell-mediated processes, not simply accidents or damage to the DNA. This cell-active view of genome change applies to all scales of DNA sequence variation, from point mutations to large-scale genome rearrangements and whole genome duplications (WGDs). This conceptual change to active cell inscriptions controlling RW genome functions has profound implications for all areas of the life sciences.”
How life changes itself: The Read–Write (RW) genome (uchicago.edu)

2016 “New Trend in Evolutionary Biology” conference in the Royal Society meeting, Gerd B. Müller discussed the challenges of MS theory and the need for the EES. The extended evolutionary synthesis acknowledges developmental bias as one of the core assumptions.

He said, “Before natural selection can act, the developmental system harbours tendencies towards certain solutions, a property that has been called developmental bias”

Here the article by Gerd B. Müller that was published on 2017.
Why an extended evolutionary synthesis is necessary (royalsocietypublishing.org)



Natural selection may operate as a purifying but not a creative force. Mutation is the creative force, mutations are never random (micro adaptation).

In the claimed evolutionary process; natural selection allows a better survival chance for advantageous random mutations. In the actual adaptation process, cells utilize mechanisms for choosing which mutations (as shown above) will occur to allow an organism a better survival chance within a specific environment. The process is quite different.



This is a strawman argument. Again, actions are not random; causes control all actions, which is manifested as order. You may predict where some rocks rolling downhill will end up. But you can never predict that some entities (of different material) moving downhill, struck by a lightening, tornado, earthquake, volcanic lava will end up downhill as a “Mercedes Benz”. If a complex unpredictable change happens, it’s not simply the expected order of an action driven by a natural force, it’s a manifestation of intelligence.

You need to put things into perspective. A single living cell is the most complex designed system man has ever witnessed which excels in every sense anything can be ever produced by the intelligence of man. Neither a Mercedes Benz nor the most complex engineered structure by man compares to a single living cell. See # 236

Your Body's Molecular Machines - YouTube

DNA animations by wehi.tv for Science-Art exhibition - YouTube

You cannot compare the claimed emergence of an extremely complex living cell from nonliving matter to the mere predictability of a rock movement downhill. This is a strawman argument.

For the sake of argument, even if scientists somehow managed to create a living cell in a controlled lab environment directly from nonliving matter (which didn’t and will never happen), then intelligence is still invoked in the process let alone that the controlled lab conditions may not be attainable in nature. Until that happen, Abiogenesis will continue to be a baseless hypothesis without any evidence let alone that it’s the only option on the table, meaning unfalsifiable. Yet you call it a “scientific method”. It’s not.

The scientific method was neither followed in Abiogenesis nor “Evolutionary Biology”. That is why Ernst Mayr said that it’s not exact science and should be included with “Geisteswissenschaften”. See# 331

What nonsense. Face it. You screwed up. Do you want t a serious discussion? The fact is that there is no scientific evidence for ID. All it is is pseudoscience. Nice "Gee Whiz!" Arguments. Here is a suggestion, learn what scientific evidence is. See if there are any openly ID peer reviewed articles in a well respected professional journal on the topic. Try to answer without breaking up a post excessively or you could try to ask questions about the science that you do not understand.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Between the alleged " Last Common Ancestor, HC-LCA” and H. sapiens (as shown on the alleged human evolutionary family tree). there are no evidence for HC-LCA or for any transitional forms leading to H. sapiens.

We have all sorts of transitional forms on our side of the process, And we know why there aren't any on the chimpanzee bonobo side. Do you know why there aren't any one the chimpanzee bonobo side? If you admit to the latter I have no problem supplying you with quite a few transitional species.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I’m well aware of what you said. The first thing I checked was “your selection of words”.

No, you didn’t say that ‏they were our ancestors. Simply because you’re aware that THEY ARE NOT. There is no evidence that any ancestor ever existed.

Evolutionists avoid the word ancestor because they know that they can be proven wrong. That’s why the word relative is typically used.

The absence of ancestors or transitional forms in the fossil record leading to H. sapiens, means that the alleged evolutionary development is false, even the alleged relationship to H. sapiens becomes baseless.

The info in #331 & #332 was not only for you but also for everyone else who wants to know about these meaningless names of alleged transitional forms that evolutionists keep repeating without understanding.

Simply, the absence of any transitional forms to H. Sapiens, necessarily means that the predictions of the ToE don’t match the real world observations in the fossil record. The ToE is proven false.

You disqualify yourself immediately when you say "there is no evidence" on the evolution side. It only tells us that you do not understand the nature of evidence. Would you care to learn?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Some more nonsensical propaganda (intended to deceive uninformed viewers) of the typical fallacious type “we know, they don’t, we follow science, they don’t” what an ignorant childish argument!!

Even when trying to touch on matters of substance Dave presents obsolete views a 100 or 50 years old that have been proven false. You need to wake up. These views have been changed.

He claims that evolutionary biology makes accurate predictions of a variety of hominid forms (transitional forms leading to H. Sapiens) consistent with actual findings/ investigation. What a lie!! Not a SINGLE specimen was scientifically established as a transitional form to H. Sapiens.

All this fuss about Lucy and he is ignorant of the fact that the “Australopithecus afarensis" genus (not only lucy) has been ruled out as a transitional form/ancestor of H. Sapiens. Wake up; Lucy is an extinct primate not an ancestor. None of the other specimens is.

What is making the assertion that “Australopithecus afarensis" is an extinct ape or "Homo erectus” is fully human is the real science based on evidence. See#326 and #327 (Not the opinion of Discovery Institute). But what is making the false claim that transitional hominid forms exist is the “Geisteswissenschaften” not the scientific evidence. See#331.

The only truth is when Dave honestly said about himself in 24:50 that he is not at all qualified. Yet Dave is been cited as a credible reference. How pathetic?

Here is what scientists had to say:

Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and 'fully formed.'" (Gould, Stephen J. The Panda's Thumb, 1980, p. 181-182)

"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change. All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt." (Stephen Jay Gould, Natural History, 86, June-July, 1977, pp. 22, 24.)

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils.” Stephen J Gould

It is hard for us paleontologists, steeped as we are in a tradition of Darwinian analysis, to admit that neo-Darwinian explanations for the Cambrian explosion have failed miserably. New data acquired in recent years, instead of solving Darwin’s dilemma, have rather made it worse. (Dr. Mark McMenamin, Paleontologist, 2013)

Ernst Mayr,(Darwin of the 20th century) Said:
“The earliest fossils of Homo, Homo rudolfensis and Homo erectus, are separated from Australopithecus by a large, unbridged gap. How can we explain this seeming saltation? Not having any fossils that can serve as missing links, we have to fall back on the time-honored method of historical science, the construction of a historical narrative.”

“evolutionary biology has developed its own methodology, that of historical narratives, to obtain its answers, particularly in cases where experiments are inappropriate.”

“evolutionary biology” is not an exact science, it should be included with “the Geisteswissenschaften”

Will you guys ever wake up? Everything you argue about has been proven false with solid evidence and you still cannot wrap your heads around it. If you cannot admit it in public, just admit it to yourselves. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s never about winning an argument. Don’t be a blind follower and get the facts straight for yourselves. Wake up.

You make me laugh. Australopithecus afarensis is still very much a transitional species. Where do you get these nonsense claims from?

We can add on to "transitional species" as a concept that you do not understand.

Let's go over the basics and then we can have a discussion. First we should go over the scientific method and why creationist sources almost always require their workers to swear to not follow it.

Second, we need to go over the concept of scientific evidence. The concept is well defined and there is endless evidence for evolution and none that I know of for creationism.

Third we need to go over the concept of transitional species since you do not understand those either.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

As I said, success means that the species remain reproductively successful. Selection acts on present circumstances not a future promise. Mutation is the force for a change not selection (selection is a purifying but not a creative force). If mutation causes a variant A to emerge within a niche and A is now better fitted for this niche than a competitor B, A will expand into B’s niche only if B dies out for some reason but B should not go extinct just because a new variant emerged. As long as ecological conditions/resources remain tolerable, a reproductively successful species B should not go extinct. Variants may expand to new territories within a geographical range but can very well coexist.

The hypothesized gradual continuous transitional sequences predicts that variants would emerge randomly but only advantageous variants would be able to leave more offspring and may gradually become the dominant variant, its a slow process during which, original species continue to exist as long as it remain reproductively successful.

The point is, it’s not as simple as A appeared, B disappeared. Per the ToE theory, multiple variants may emerge but only the advantageous ones would gradually become the dominant.

Mutation is the variation that selection acts on. Selection drives the change. It preserves, discards or ignores the changes.

If a new mutation in a species within a niche becomes fixed in the population and allows those that have that to outcompete other members of their population, it is still the same species. The new allele does not magically change those that carry it into new species outcompeting the existing species. There is no suggesting of the sudden formation of two species and one outcompeting the other.

In situations were an entirely different species enters a niche, there can be competition that leads to some sort of equilibrium between the species, failure of the invading species or success of the invader in taking over. This is backed up by real world evidence. Invasive species. You are mixing the two into something erroneous.

Variant is not synonymous with new species.

The theory describes the change and why. It does not predict what a specific mutation will do within a population.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

My point is that real world evidence in the fossil record don’t support the predictions of the ToE. The specimens found are neither transitional forms leading to H. sapiens nor have any evolutionary development relationship.

Real world data do not support the hypothesized macroevolution through gradual, continuous transitional sequences. The hypothesis is false.

They do support it. You are making a straw man. My great, great, grandfathers cousin is still in my ancestry. If evidence indicates that he had some change that is also present in me, then he is evidence of my evolution.