Science Disproves Evolution

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 1

For over a century, studies of skulls and teeth have produced unreliable conclusions about man’s origin (a). Also, fossil evidence allegedly supporting human evolution is fragmentary and open to other interpretations. Fossil evidence showing the evolution of chimpanzees, supposedly the closest living relative to humans, is nonexistent (b).

Stories claiming that fossils of primitive, apelike men have been found are overstated (c).

It is now universally acknowledged that Piltdown “man” was a hoax, yet Piltdown “man” was in textbooks for more than 40 years (d).

a. “... existing phylogenetic hypotheses about human evolution [based on skulls and teeth] are unlikely to be reliable.” Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Vol. 97, No. 9, 25 April 2000, p. 5003.

b. “Fossil evidence of human evolutionary history is fragmentary and open to various interpretations. Fossil evidence of chimpanzee evolution is absent altogether.” Henry Gee, “Return to the Planet of the Apes,” Nature, Vol. 412, 12 July 2001, p. 131.

c. Lord Zuckerman candidly stated that if special creation did not occur, then no scientist could deny that man evolved from some apelike creature “without leaving any fossil traces of the steps of the transformation.” Solly Zuckerman (former Chief Scientific Advisor to the British Government and Honorary Secretary of the Zoological Society of London), Beyond the Ivory Tower (New York: Taplinger Publishing Co., 1970), p. 64.

Bowden, pp. 56–246.

Duane T. Gish, Battle for Creation, Vol. 2, editor Henry M. Morris (San Diego: Creation-Life Publishers, 1976), pp. 193–200, 298–305.

d. Speaking of Piltdown man, Lewin admits a common human problem even scientists have:

“How is it that trained men, the greatest experts of their day, could look at a set of modern human bones—the cranial fragments—and “see” a clear simian signature in them; and “see” in an ape’s jaw the unmistakable signs of humanity? The answers, inevitably, have to do with the scientists’ expectations and their effects on the interpretation of data.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 61.”

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1418274

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 2


Since 1953, when Piltdown man was discovered to be a hoax, at least eleven people have been accused of perpetrating the hoax. These included Charles Dawson, Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, and Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, creator of Sherlock Holmes.

The hoaxer now appears to have been Martin A. C. Hinton, who had a reputation as a practical joker and worked in the British Museum (Natural History) when Piltdown man was discovered. In the mid-1970s, an old trunk, marked with Hinton’s initials, was found in the museum’s attic. The trunk contained bones stained and carved in the same detailed way as the Piltdown bones. [For details, see Henry Gee, “Box of Bones ‘Clinches’ Identity of Piltdown Palaeontology Hoaxer,” Nature, Vol. 381, 23 May 1996, pp. 261–262.]

Before 1977, evidence for Ramapithecus was a mere handful of teeth and jaw fragments. We now know these fragments were pieced together incorrectly by Louis Leakey (e) and others into a form resembling part of the human jaw (f). Ramapithecus was just an ape (g). Some textbooks still claim that Ramapithecus is man’s ancestor, an intermediate between man and some apelike ancestor. This mistaken belief resulted from piecing together, in 1932, fragments of upper teeth and bones into the two large pieces. This was done so the shape of the jaw resembled the parabolic arch of man. In 1977, a complete lower jaw of Ramapithecus was found. The true shape of the jaw was not parabolic, but rather U-shaped, distinctive of apes.

Artists’ drawings, even those based on speculation, powerfully influence the public. Nebraska man was mistakenly based on one tooth of an extinct pig. Yet in 1922, The Illustrated London News published a picture showing our supposed ancestors. Of course, it is highly unlikely that any fossil evidence could support the image conveyed of a naked man carrying a club.

e. Allen L. Hammond, “Tales of an Elusive Ancestor,” Science 83, November 1983, pp. 37, 43.

f. Adrienne L. Zihlman and J. Lowenstein, “False Start of the Human Parade,” Natural History, Vol. 88, August–September 1979, pp. 86–91.

g. Hammond, p. 43.

“The dethroning of Ramapithecus—from putative [supposed] first human in 1961 to extinct relative of the orangutan in 1982—is one of the most fascinating, and bitter, sagas in the search for human origins.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, p. 86.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1418274

[Chal]

Foundational Falsehoods of Creationism.

Specifically number 13


Boring troll is boring.

[hoverFrog]

Well I'm convinced. I must abandon science and evidence in favour of a belief in a some cosmic Jewish zombie, who is his own father, can make me live forever if I symbolically eat his flesh and telepathically tell him that I accept him as my master, so he can remove an evil force from my soul, that is present in humanity because a rib-woman was convinced by a talking snake to eat from a magical tree instead.

[Neon Genesis]

Does this mean we don't have to go to school anymore?

[Huxley]

You missed out the mistaken teeth of a Peccary for a human ancestor. Quite obvious that science is rubbish and never ever discovers mistakes.

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 3


Forty years after he discovered Java “man,” Eugene Dubois conceded that it was not a man, but was similar to a large gibbon (an ape). In citing evidence to support this new conclusion, Dubois admitted that he had withheld parts of four other thighbones of apes found in the same area (h).

h. Java man consisted of two bones found about 39 feet apart: a skullcap and femur (thighbone). Rudolf Virchow, the famous German pathologist, believed that the femur was from a gibbon. By concurring, Dubois supported his own non-Darwinian theory of evolution—a theory too complex and strange to discuss here.

Whether or not the bones were from a large-brained gibbon, a hominid, another animal, or two completely different animals is not the only issue. This episode shows how easily the person who knew the bones best could shift his interpretation from Java “man” to Java “gibbon.” Even after more finds were made at other sites in Java, the total evidence was so fragmentary that many interpretations were possible.

“Pithecanthropus [Java man] was not a man, but a gigantic genus allied to the Gibbons, superior to its near relatives on account of its exceedingly large brain volume, and distinguished at the same time by its erect attitude.” Eugene Dubois, “On the Fossil Human Skulls Recently Discovered in Java and Pithecanthropus Erectus,” Man, Vol. 37, January 1937, p. 4.

“Thus the evidence given by those five new thigh bones of the morphological and functional distinctness of Pithecanthropus erectus furnishes proof, at the same time, of its close affinity with the gibbon group of anthropoid apes.” Ibid., p. 5.

“The success of Darwinism was accompanied by a decline in scientific integrity ... A striking example, which has only recently come to light, is the alteration of the Piltdown skull so that it could be used as evidence for the descent of man from the apes; but even before this a similar instance of tinkering with evidence was finally revealed by the discoverer of Pithecanthropus [Java man], who admitted, many years after his sensational report, that he had found in the same deposits bones that are definitely human.” W. R. Thompson, p. 17.

W. R. Thompson, in his “Introduction to The Origin of Species” by Charles Darwin, refers to Dubois’ discovery in November 1890 of part of a lower jaw containing the stump of a tooth. This was found at Kedung-Brubus (also spelled Kedeong Broboes), 25 miles east of his find of Java “man” at Trinil, eleven months later. Dubois was confident it was a human jaw of Tertiary age. [See Herbert Wendt, In Search of Adam (Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Publishers, 1955), pp. 293–294.] Dubois’ claims of finding “the missing link” would probably have been ignored if he had mentioned this jaw. Similar, but less convincing, charges have been made against Dubois concerning his finding of obvious human skulls at Wadjak, 60 miles from Trinil.

C. L. Brace and Ashley Montagu, Human Evolution, 2nd edition (New York: Macmillan Publishing Co., 1977), p. 204.

Bowden, pp. 138–142, 144–148.

Hitching, pp. 208–209.

Patrick O’Connell, Science of Today and the Problems of Genesis, 2nd edition (Roseburg, Oregon: self-published, 1969), pp. 139–142.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1418274

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 4

Many experts consider the skulls of Peking “man” to be the remains of apes that were systematically decapitated and exploited for food by true man (i). Its classification, Homo erectus, is considered by most experts to be a category that should never have been created (j).

The first confirmed limb bones of Homo habilis were discovered in 1986. They showed that this animal clearly had apelike proportions (k) and should never have been classified as manlike (Homo) (l).

i. Bowden, pp. 90–137.
Marcellin Boule and Henri V. Vallois, Fossil Men (New York: The Dryden Press, 1957), p. 145.
j. “[The reanalysis of Narmada Man] puts another nail in the coffin of Homo erectus as a viable taxon.” Kenneth A. R. Kennedy, as quoted in “Homo Erectus Never Existed?” Geotimes, October 1992, p. 11.
k. Donald C. Johanson et al., “New Partial Skeleton of Homo Habilis from Olduvai Gorge, Tanzania,” Nature, Vol. 327, 21 May 1987, pp. 205–209.
l. “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 [Homo].” Bernard Wood and Mark Collard, “The Human Genus,” Science, Vol. 284, 2 April 1999, p. 65.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1418274

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 5


The australopithecines, made famous by Louis and Mary Leakey, are quite distinct from humans. Several detailed computer studies of australopithecines have shown that their bodily proportions were not intermediate between those of man and living apes (m).

m. Dr. Charles Oxnard and Sir Solly Zuckerman, referred to below, were leaders in the development of a powerful multivariate analysis technique. A computer simultaneously performs millions of comparisons on hundreds of corresponding dimensions of the bones of living apes, humans, and the australopithecines. Their verdict, that the australopithecines are not intermediate between man and living apes, is quite different from the more subjective and less analytical visual techniques of most anthropologists. To my knowledge, this technique has not been applied to the most famous australopithecine, commonly known as “Lucy.”

“... the only positive fact we have about the Australopithecine brain is that it was no bigger than the brain of a gorilla. The claims that are made about the human character of the Australopithecine face and jaws are no more convincing than those made about the size of its brain. The Australopithecine skull is in fact so overwhelmingly simian as opposed to human that the contrary proposition could be equated to an assertion that black is white.” Zuckerman, p. 78.

“Let us now return to our original problem: the Australopithecine fossils. I shall not burden you with details of each and every study that we have made, but ... the conventional wisdom is that the Australopithecine fragments are generally rather similar to humans and when different deviate somewhat towards the condition in the African apes, the new studies point to different conclusions. The new investigations suggest that the fossil fragments are usually uniquely different from any living form ...” Charles E. Oxnard (Dean of the Graduate School, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, and from 1973 to 1978 a Dean at the University of Chicago), “Human Fossils: New Views of Old Bones,” The American Biology Teacher, Vol. 41, May 1979, p. 273.

Charles E. Oxnard, “The Place of the Australopithecines in Human Evolution: Grounds for Doubt?” Nature, Vol. 258, 4 December 1975, pp. 389–395.

“For my own part, the anatomical basis for the claim that the Australopithecines walked and ran upright like man is so much more flimsy than the evidence which points to the conclusion that their gait was some variant of what one sees in subhuman Primates, that it remains unacceptable.” Zuckerman, p. 93.

“His Lordship’s [Sir Solly Zuckerman’s] scorn for the level of competence he sees displayed by paleoanthropologists is legendary, exceeded only by the force of his dismissal of the australopithecines as having anything at all to do with human evolution. ‘They are just bloody apes,’ he is reputed to have observed on examining the australopithecine remains in South Africa.” Lewin, Bones of Contention, [i] pp. 164–165.

[i] “This Australopithecine material suggests a form of locomotion that was not entirely upright nor bipedal. The Rudolf Australopithecines, in fact, may have been close to the ‘knuckle-walker’ condition, not unlike the extant African apes.” Richard E. F. Leakey, “Further Evidence of Lower Pleistocene Hominids from East Rudolf, North Kenya,” Nature, Vol. 231, 28 May 1971, p. 245.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1418274

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 6


Another study, which examined the inner ear bone of australopithecine, used to maintain balance, showed a striking similarity to those of chimpanzees and gorillas, but great differences from those of humans (n). Likewise, their pattern of dental development corresponds to chimpanzees, not humans (o). Claims were made—based on one australopithecine fossil (a 3.5-foot-tall, long-armed, 60-pound adult called Lucy)—that all australopithecines walked upright in a human manner. However, studies of Lucy’s entire anatomy, not just a knee joint, now show that this is very unlikely. She likely swung from the trees (p) and was similar to pygmy chimpanzees (q). The australopithecines are probably extinct apes (r).

n. “Among the fossil hominids, the australopithecines show great-ape-like proportions [based on CAT scans of their inner ears] and H. erectus shows modern-human-like proportions.” Fred Spoor et al., “Implications of Early Hominid Labyrinthine Morphology for Evolution of Human Bipedal Locomotion,” Nature, Vol. 369, 23 June 1994, p. 646. [Many H. erectus bones are probably those of H. sapiens.]

o. “The closest parallel today to the pattern of dental development of [australopithecines] is not in people but in chimpanzees.” Bruce Bower, “Evolution’s Youth Movement,” Science News, Vol. 159, 2 June 2001, p. 347.

p. William L. Jungers, “Lucy’s Limbs: Skeletal Allometry and Locomotion in Australopithecus Afarensis,” Nature, Vol. 297, 24 June 1982, pp. 676–678.

Jeremy Cherfas, “Trees Have Made Man Upright,” New Scientist, Vol. 93, 20 January 1983, pp. 172–178.

Jack T. Stern Jr. and Randall L. Susman, “The Locomotor Anatomy of Australopithecus Afarensis,” American Journal of Physical Anthropology, Vol. 60, March 1983, pp. 279–317.

q. Adrienne Zihlman, “Pigmy Chimps, People, and the Pundits,” New Scientist, Vol. 104, 15 November 1984, pp. 39–40.

r. “At present we have no grounds for thinking that there was anything distinctively human about australopithecine ecology and behavior. ... [T]hey were surprisingly apelike in skull form, premolar dentition, limb proportions, and morphology of some joint surfaces, and they may still have been spending a significant amount of time in the trees.” Matt Cartmill et al., “One Hundred Years of Paleoanthropology,” American Scientist, Vol. 74, July–August 1986, p. 417.

“The proportions calculated for africanus turned out to be amazingly close to those of a chimpanzee, with big arms and small legs. ... ‘One might say we are kicking Lucy out of the family tree,’ says Berger.” James Shreeve, “New Skeleton Gives Path from Trees to Ground an Odd Turn,” Science, Vol. 272, 3 May 1996, p. 654.

“There is indeed, no question which the Australopithecine skull resembles when placed side by side with specimens of human and living ape skulls. It is the ape—so much so that only detailed and close scrutiny can reveal any differences between them.” Solly Zuckerman, “Correlation of Change in the Evolution of Higher Primates,” Evolution as a Process, editors Julian Huxley, A. C. Hardy, and E. B. Ford (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd., 1954), p. 307.

“We can safely conclude from the fossil hominoid material now available that in the history of the globe there have been many more species of great ape than just the three which exist today.” Ibid., pp. 348–349.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1418274

[hoverFrog]

You do know that humans are apes don't you? You keep trying to force an distinction between human like apes and ape like humans that isn't there. Humans are apes just as humans are mammals just as humans are animals. Have you ever played 20 questions? The first is typically something along the line or "is it a vegetable" or "is it an animal" or "is it a mineral". For classifications these work as reasonable, high level categories.

Darwin was not well enough to attend, so a close friend, the eminent scientist Thomas Henry Huxley, volunteered to debate in his place. Huxley was an impressive public speaker who had vigorously defended Darwin’s views many times and had earned the nickname ‘Darwin’s bulldog’.

As Bishop Wilberforce finished delivering his opening address, he enquired of Huxley, ‘Is it on your grandmother’s or grandfather’s side that you are descended from an ape?’ Huxley responded by clearly outlining all the evidence supporting Darwin’s theory. He then turned to the bishop and said, ‘I would rather be descended from an ape than a man who uses his great faculties and influence for the purpose of ridicule.’ This statement sent the crowd into an uproar. One magazine wrote that a Lady Brewster fainted and the audience was implored to ‘listen to God rather than man.’

I know how much copying and pasting is appreciated so I thought I'd join in.

[Pahu78]

You do know that humans are apes don't you?

Why do you believe that?

You keep trying to force an distinction between human like apes and ape like humans that isn't there. Humans are apes just as humans are mammals just as humans are animals. Have you ever played 20 questions? The first is typically something along the line or "is it a vegetable" or "is it an animal" or "is it a mineral". For classifications these work as reasonable, high level categories.

Those kind of games are fun and in a general sense we are classified in the animal category. But to conclude that therefor we are apes is really a stretch. There are similarities, but you may have noticed some differences--vast differences--between humans and apes. While we are inventing and using computers, cars, boats, electricity, and going to the moon and beyond, apes are still swinging from branches.

There are similarities between two white pills of the same size and shape, but if one is aspirin and the other is cyanide, the difference can be fatal.

[Chal]

Once again, AronRa explains this quite clearly.



We have similarities going all the way down. There is no definition of "ape" that contains all of the other apes but not humans.

[hoverFrog]

Why do you believe that?

Thank you. I was wondering if you actually read the comments people have left. To answer your question there are classifications for all life, animal and plant. They are largely artificial but serve a useful purpose in understanding different forms of life. In the case of mammalian animals we all share a number of characteristics. Human beings share a significant number of these characteristics with the great apes which is a fair indicator of a shared ancestry. Moreover the transitional remains of our ancestors indicate a common ancestor that diverged in the past.

Obviously you can get a much better and much more detailed description from an evolutionary biology text book or from an expert in the field. However I do want to touch on one point. Namely that understanding that evolution is true is not a matter of belief but of taking the evidence and facts and and comparing them to a well supported theory. Evolution is exceptionally well supported to the extend that there is almost no disagreement on the scientific principles involved, only certain fringe points.

Those kind of games are fun and in a general sense we are classified in the animal category. But to conclude that therefor we are apes is really a stretch. There are similarities, but you may have noticed some differences--vast differences--between humans and apes. While we are inventing and using computers, cars, boats, electricity, and going to the moon and beyond, apes are still swinging from branches.

[/quote][/quote]Nobody disputes that the great apes differ from human beings or that chimpanzees differ from gorillas. Look though at the facts. Strip away our invented technology, which is the product of thousands of years of science brought about by our well developed brains and our propensity to develop tools, and how are we that different from apes? Can you honestly not see how very close we are to the ape cousins? even if you can't you must consider the wealth of scientific evidence that supports a close kin relationship. Our closest relative, the chimpanzee shares more than 98% of our DNA. Even rats and mice don't share that much.

Besides which if that argument were to have any weight then the denizens of Borneo who live a nomadic hunter gatherer life style would be considered non-human and the highest form of humanity would be the most technologically advanced. Clearly this argument is flawed.

[Pseudonym]

Once again, AronRa explains this quite clearly.

What a great video. Thanks for that, Chal.

There's only one glaring mistake that I could see, which is where he claimed that the platypus was the only extant organism which had all of the features of the first mammals. The echidna also has all of the traits mentioned.

[Pahu78]

Moreover the transitional remains of our ancestors indicate a common ancestor that diverged in the past.

What transitional remains? Where are they? Why can't anyone find them? Gaps in the fossil record are well known. A century ago, evolutionists argued that these gaps would be filled as knowledge increased. The same gaps persist, and most paleontologists now admit that those predictions failed. Of course, the most famous “missing link” is between man and apes, but the term is deceiving. There is not merely one missing link, but thousands—a long chain—if the evolutionary tree were to connect man and apes (with their many linguistic, social, mental, and physical differences).

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1635676

If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record.a At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae).b Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants,c between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects,d between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones),e between fish and amphibians,f between amphibians and reptiles,g between reptiles and mammals,h between reptiles and birds,i between primates and other mammals,j and between apes and other primates.k In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled.l

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp2755436

Obviously you can get a much better and much more detailed description from an evolutionary biology text book or from an expert in the field. However I do want to touch on one point. Namely that understanding that evolution is true is not a matter of belief but of taking the evidence and facts and and comparing them to a well supported theory. Evolution is exceptionally well supported to the extend that there is almost no disagreement on the scientific principles involved, only certain fringe points.

Those kind of games are fun and in a general sense we are classified in the animal category. But to conclude that therefor we are apes is really a stretch. There are similarities, but you may have noticed some differences--vast differences--between humans and apes. While we are inventing and using computers, cars, boats, electricity, and going to the moon and beyond, apes are still swinging from branches.

Nobody disputes that the great apes differ from human beings or that chimpanzees differ from gorillas. Look though at the facts. Strip away our invented technology, which is the product of thousands of years of science brought about by our well developed brains and our propensity to develop tools, and how are we that different from apes? Can you honestly not see how very close we are to the ape cousins? even if you can't you must consider the wealth of scientific evidence that supports a close kin relationship. Our closest relative, the chimpanzee shares more than 98% of our DNA. Even rats and mice don't share that much.

Of course, if we ignore the differences and only look at the similarities, we may convince ourselves that we and apes are descended from a common ancestor, even without any transitional evidence. But those vast differences do exist and a better conclusion is we all have a common Designer. The 98% similarity in our DNA helps to confirm that conclusion. With only a 2% difference we see an incalculable difference in output.

Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. These statements had little scientific justification, because they were made before anyone had completed the sequencing of human DNA and long before the sequencing of chimpanzee DNA had begun.

Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and rigorously compared. The differences, which total about 4%, are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected.g Those differences include about “thirty-five million single-nucleotide changes, five million insertions/deletions, and various chromosomal rearrangements.”h Although it’s only 4%, a huge DNA chasm separates humans from chimpanzees.

Finally, evolutionary trees, based on the outward appearance of organisms, can now be compared with the organisms’ genetic information. They conflict in major ways.i

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp2757820

[Pahu78]

Ape-Men? 7


For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets (s). Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today (t). Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,” especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence (u).

Furthermore, the techniques used to date these fossils are highly questionable.

s. Francis Ivanhoe, “Was Virchow Right About Neanderthal?” Nature, Vol. 227, 8 August 1970, pp. 577–578.

William L. Straus Jr. and A. J. E. Cave, “Pathology and the Posture of Neanderthal Man,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 32, December, 1957, pp. 348–363.

Bruce M. Rothschild and Pierre L. Thillaud, “Oldest Bone Disease,” Nature, Vol. 349, 24 January 1991, p. 288.

t. Jack Cuozzo, Buried Alive: The Startling Truth about Neanderthal Man (Green Forest, Arkansas: Master Books, 1998).

Jack Cuozzo, “Early Orthodontic Intervention: A View from Prehistory,” The Journal of the New Jersey Dental Association, Vol. 58, No. 4, Autumn 1987, pp. 33–40.

u. Boyce Rensberger, “Facing the Past,” Science 81, October 1981, p. 49.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1418274

[Pseudonym]

What transitional remains? Where are they? Why can't anyone find them? Gaps in the fossil record are well known. A century ago, evolutionists argued that these gaps would be filled as knowledge increased. The same gaps persist, and most paleontologists now admit that those predictions failed.

This is a serious mischaracterisation.

If you think about it, we should expect more "gaps" over time, not fewer. If you find a transitional form between A and C, call it B, this not only increases your confidence that A did transform into C, now you have two gaps (A/B and B/C) instead of one.

Of course, the most famous “missing link” is between man and apes, but the term is deceiving.

Yes, it is. Humans are apes.

If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers.

If we knew nothing about how fossils develop, we might expect this. But we know that fossils form rarely, and so what we should find is a semi-random sampling, not the entire continuum.

The "gold standard" of evidence, though, is multiple converging lines of evidence. We would like to have unrelated lines of evidence all point to the same conclusion. And, indeed, this is what we have. We would expect, for example, any errors in analysis of fossils and analysis of phylogenetics to be uncorrelated, so if there is a "signal" in them both that point to the same conclusion, it's highly unlikely to be due to a systematic error.

Those kind of games are fun and in a general sense we are classified in the animal category. But to conclude that therefor we are apes is really a stretch. There are similarities, but you may have noticed some differences--vast differences--between humans and apes. While we are inventing and using computers, cars, boats, electricity, and going to the moon and beyond, apes are still swinging from branches.

And birds are nesting in the eaves of buildings rather than cave walls. The apes that we have today are modern species. They are not the same organisms that existed 2 million years ago. That we do have fossil evidence for.

Of course, if we ignore the differences and only look at the similarities, we may convince ourselves that we and apes are descended from a common ancestor, even without any transitional evidence. But those vast differences do exist and a better conclusion is we all have a common Designer. The 98% similarity in our DNA helps to confirm that conclusion. With only a 2% difference we see an incalculable difference in output.

Evolutionists say that the chimpanzee is the closest living relative to humans. For two decades (1984–2004), evolutionists and the media claimed that human DNA is about 99% similar to chimpanzee DNA. [...] Chimpanzee and human DNA have now been completely sequenced and rigorously compared. The differences, which total about 4%, are far greater and more complicated than evolutionists suspected.

Sorry to get all cryptic on you guys, but some day, someone is going to come up with a good lay explanation of what these percentages actually mean. Many geneticists and bioinformaticians are somewhat annoyed with these percentages being bandied about with no semantics attached to them.

[Chal]

What transitional remains? Where are they? Why can't anyone find them? Gaps in the fossil record are well known. A century ago, evolutionists argued that these gaps would be filled as knowledge increased. The same gaps persist, and most paleontologists now admit that those predictions failed. Of course, the most famous “missing link” is between man and apes, but the term is deceiving. There is not merely one missing link, but thousands—a long chain—if the evolutionary tree were to connect man and apes (with their many linguistic, social, mental, and physical differences).

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1635676

If evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers. Actually, many gaps or discontinuities appear throughout the fossil record.a At the most fundamental level, a big gap exists between forms of life whose cells have nuclei (eukaryotes, such as plants, animals, and fungi) and those that don’t (prokaryotes such as bacteria and blue-green algae).b Fossil links are also missing between large groupings of plants,c between single-celled forms of life and invertebrates (animals without backbones), among insects,d between invertebrates and vertebrates (animals with backbones),e between fish and amphibians,f between amphibians and reptiles,g between reptiles and mammals,h between reptiles and birds,i between primates and other mammals,j and between apes and other primates.k In fact, chains are missing, not links. The fossil record has been studied so thoroughly that it is safe to conclude that these gaps are real; they will never be filled.l

Do you ever get tired of being so wrong?

Ape-Men? 7

For about 100 years the world was led to believe that Neanderthal man was stooped and apelike. This false idea was based upon some Neanderthals with bone diseases such as arthritis and rickets (s). Recent dental and x-ray studies of Neanderthals suggest that they were humans who matured at a slower rate and lived to be much older than people today (t). Neanderthal man, Heidelberg man, and Cro-Magnon man are now considered completely human. Artists’ drawings of “ape-men,” especially their fleshy portions, are often quite imaginative and are not supported by the evidence (u).

Video 13, included above.

Neanderthals can be considered human in the sense that some scientists believe that they should be classified as Homo sapiens neanderthalensis. However, even if this is the case, they still are not the same as modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens), and there is no evidence that we've descended from them.

Cro-Magnon man is a sapiens sapiens, and no one's really claimed otherwise that I know of.

Honestly, just read this.

[Pahu78]

If we knew nothing about how fossils develop, we might expect [that if evolution happened, the fossil record should show continuous and gradual changes from the bottom to the top layers]. But we know that fossils form rarely, and so what we should find is a semi-random sampling, not the entire continuum.

So are you saying your belief in evolution is based on the non-existence of transitions, because since fossils form rarely, the only ones that can be found are the ones that are fully developed? Shouldn’t at least one transition have been found in the last 150 years of searching? After all, even if they are rare, hundreds of millions of fossils have been found.

[Pahu78]

Fossil Man

Bones of modern-looking humans have been found deep in undisturbed rocks that, according to evolution, were formed long before man began to evolve. Examples include the Calaveras skull (a), the Castenedolo skeletons (b), Reck’s skeleton (c), and others (d). Remains such as the Swanscombe skull, the Steinheim fossil, and the Vertesszöllos fossil present similar problems (e). Evolutionists almost always ignore these remains.

a. J. D. Whitney, “The Auriferous Gravels of the Sierra Nevada of California,” Memoirs of the Museum of Comparative Zoology of Harvard College, Vol. 6, 1880, pp. 258–288.

Bowden, pp. 76–78.

Frank W. Cousins, Fossil Man (Emsworth, England: A. E. Norris & Sons Ltd., 1971), pp. 50–52, 82, 83.

W. H. B., “Alleged Discovery of An Ancient Human Skull in California,” American Journal of Science, Vol. 2, 1866, p. 424.

Edward C. Lain and Robert E. Gentet, “The Case for the Calaveras Skull,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 33, March 1997, pp. 248–256.

For many years, a story circulated that the Calaveras skull, buried 130 feet below ground, was a practical joke. This tidy explanation conveniently overlooks the hundreds of human bones and artifacts (such as spearheads, mortars and pestles, and dozens of bowls made of stone) found in that part of California. These artifacts have been found over the years under undisturbed strata and a layer of basaltic lava. See, for example:

Whitney, pp. 262–264, 266, 274–276.

G. Frederick Wright, Man and the Glacial Period (New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1897), pp. 294–301.

George F. Becker, “Antiquities from under Tuolumne Table Mountain in California,” Bulletin of the Geological Society of America, Vol. 2, 20 February 1891, pp. 189–200.

b. Bowden, pp. 78–79.

Cousins, pp. 48–50, 81.

Sir Arthur Keith correctly stated the dilemma evolutionists face with the Castenedolo skeletons:

“As the student of prehistoric man reads and studies the records of the “Castenedolo” find, a feeling of incredulity rises within him. He cannot reject the discovery as false without doing an injury to his sense of truth, and he cannot accept it as a fact without shattering his accepted beliefs.” Arthur Keith, The Antiquity of Man (London: Williams and Norgate, Ltd., 1925), p. 334.

However, after examining the strata above and below the Castenedolo skeletons, and after finding no indication that they were intrusively buried, Keith surprisingly concluded that the enigma must be resolved by an intrusive burial. He justified this by citing the unfossilized condition of the bones. However, these bones were encased in a clay layer. Clay would prevent water from transporting large amounts of dissolved minerals into the bone cells and explain the lack of fossilization. Fossilization depends much more on chemistry than age.

c. Bowden, pp. 183–193.

d. Ibid., pp. 79–88.

e. Fix, pp. 98–105.

J. B. Birdsell, Human Evolution (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1972), pp. 316–318.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebo ... #wp1009380

[JulietEcho]

So are you saying your belief in evolution is based on the non-existence of transitions, because since fossils form rarely, the only ones that can be found are the ones that are fully developed? Shouldn’t at least one transition have been found in the last 150 years of searching? After all, even if they are rare, hundreds of millions of fossils have been found.

You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means...

[Pahu78]

So are you saying your belief in evolution is based on the non-existence of transitions, because since fossils form rarely, the only ones that can be found are the ones that are fully developed? Shouldn’t at least one transition have been found in the last 150 years of searching? After all, even if they are rare, hundreds of millions of fossils have been found.

You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means...

I'm using it in the sense of the dictionary meaning:
the process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another.

What do you think the word means?

[JulietEcho]

So are you saying your belief in evolution is based on the non-existence of transitions, because since fossils form rarely, the only ones that can be found are the ones that are fully developed? Shouldn’t at least one transition have been found in the last 150 years of searching? After all, even if they are rare, hundreds of millions of fossils have been found.

You keep using that word... I do not think it means what you think it means...

I'm using it in the sense of the dictionary meaning:
the process or a period of changing from one state or condition to another.

What do you think the word means?

In the context of fossils, it means that a fossil demonstrates a state that falls between two other states, as part of a chain of evolution. There are plenty of transitional fossils - it's just that creationists always seem to reject them out-of-hand or claim that they represent an anomaly or a different species. That's as silly as saying that, because we found three differently-sized skulls - one from an infant, one from a teenager and one from a matured adult - the three came from three different species. You're not going to find a skull that's actively changing in size - that's not how bones work.

You're not going to find fossils that are *moving* somehow, or *still* transitioning - you're going to find various fossils from different periods in time that show how things changed from generation to generation. Evolution takes a long, long, long, LONG time. Just as you can't expect a kid's skull to have changed noticeably within five minutes of his life, you're not going to find that a species shows a noticeable change within 5000 years of its existence. You have to understand that the process is a very slow, very gradual one.

[Pahu78]

In the context of fossils, [transition] means that a fossil demonstrates a state that falls between two other states, as part of a chain of evolution. There are plenty of transitional fossils - it's just that creationists always seem to reject them out-of-hand or claim that they represent an anomaly or a different species. That's as silly as saying that, because we found three differently-sized skulls - one from an infant, one from a teenager and one from a matured adult - the three came from three different species. You're not going to find a skull that's actively changing in size - that's not how bones work.

You're not going to find fossils that are *moving* somehow, or *still* transitioning - you're going to find various fossils from different periods in time that show how things changed from generation to generation. Evolution takes a long, long, long, LONG time. Just as you can't expect a kid's skull to have changed noticeably within five minutes of his life, you're not going to find that a species shows a noticeable change within 5000 years of its existence. You have to understand that the process is a very slow, very gradual one.

The problem with your reasoning is that scientists admit there are no transitions. In the first place, objective paleontologists concede that one’s interpretation of the fossil record will invariably be influenced by one’s presuppositions (in the case of the evolutionists, the presumption that evolution has taken place), and that everything must therefore be forced to somehow fit into that framework. This has been precisely the observation of Ronald West:

“Contrary to what most scientists write, the fossil record does not support the Darwinian theory of evolution because it is this theory (there are several) which we use to interpret the fossil record. By doing so, we are guilty of circular reasoning if we then say the fossil record supports this theory.” [Ronald R. West (evolutionist), “Paleontology and Uniformitariansim.” Compass, Vol. 45 (May 1968), p. 216.]

Steven Stanley, highly-respected authority from Johns Hopkins, has this to say on the lack of a transitional fossil record—where it matters most, between genera and higher taxa (in other words, immediately above the [often arbitrarily and subjectively defined] species level and upwards):

“Established species are evolving so slowly that major transitions between genera and higher taxa must be occurring within small rapidly evolving populations that leave NO LEGIBLE FOSSIL RECORD.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution and the Fossil Record, Vol. 36, No. 3, 1986, p. 460.]

If that weren’t enough to raise some doubts, Stanley, an affirmed evolutionist, is also objective enough to point out:

“The known fossil record fails to document a single example of phyletic evolution accomplishing a major morphologic transition and hence offers no evidence that a gradualistic model can be valid.” [Steven M. Stanley, Macroevolution: Pattern and Process. San Francisco: W. M. Freeman & Co., 1979, p. 39.]

George Gaylord Simpson, another leading evolutionist, sees this characteristic in practically the whole range of taxonomic categories:

"...Every paleontologist knows that most new species, genera, and families, and that nearly all categories above the level of family appear in the record suddenly and are not led up to by known, gradual, completely continuous transitional sequences.” [George Gaylord Simpson (evolutionist), The Major Features of Evolution, New York, Columbia University Press, 1953 p. 360.]

David Kitts acknowledges the problem and reiterates the subjectivity with which the fossil record is viewed:

“Few paleontologists have, I think, ever supposed that fossils, by themselves, provide grounds for the conclusion that evolution has occurred. The fossil record doesn’t even provide any evidence in support of Darwinian theory except in the weak sense that the fossil record is compatible with it, just as it is compatible with other evolutionary theories, and revolutionary theories, and special creationist theories, and even ahistorical theories.” [David B. Kitts (evolutionist), "Search for the Holy Transformation," Paleobiology, Vol. 5 (Summer 1979), pp. 353-354.]

E. R. Leach offers no help, observing only that:

“Missing links in the sequence of fossil evidence were a worry to Darwin. He felt sure they would eventually turn up, but they are still missing and seem likely to remain so.” [E.R. Leach (evolutionist); Nature 293:19, 1981]

Among the most well-known proponents of evolution (and a fierce opponent of Creationism), even Steven Jay Gould admits:

“At the higher level of evolutionary transition between basic morphological designs, gradualism has always been in trouble, though it remains the “official” position of most Western evolutionists. Smooth intermediates between Baupläne are almost impossible to construct, even in thought experiments; there is certainly no evidence for them in the fossil record (curious mosaics like Archaeopteryx do not count).” [S.J. Gould & Niles Eldredge (evolutionists); Paleobiology 3:147, 1977]

“The extreme rarity of transitional forms is the trade secret of paleontology ... The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism: 1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless. 2. 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.’” [S.J. Gould (evolutionist); Natural History 86:14 (1977)]

http://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.asp