Science Disproves Evolution

[spot]

Recently they just did that with the monkey that they say was transitioning to human.

The thing is, they said nothing remotely like that at all.

The article you're discussing is at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1731-0 and the Abstract is free as are all the photos and measurements in the supplement.

Nothing about monkeys transitioning to human. Nothing about monkeys, come to that.

They say there have been two proposed routes for the development of walking on two legs (bipedalism) in hominins:

It has been suggested that bipedalism in hominins evolved from an ancestor that was a palmigrade quadruped (which would have moved similarly to living monkeys), or from a more suspensory quadruped (most similar to extant chimpanzees)

They are describing a third route based on measurements of ape specimens:

Here we describe the fossil ape Danuvius guggenmosi (from the Allgäu region of Bavaria) for which complete limb bones are preserved, which provides evidence of a newly identified form of positional behaviour - extended limb clambering.

They are not proposing "a whole new common ancestor", they are describing the remains of one extinct species of ape which predates both present-day apes and present-day humans. They don't claim it is an ancestor species of any present-day ape or any present-day human. They have found fossil remains of a single species, identified primarily, I think, on the basis of twenty teeth as well as the twenty-ish bones. They have described the ape species and they have claimed evidence of extended limb clambering on the basis of the complete limb bones they have measured. Finally they say that this third model "provides a model for the common ancestor of great apes and humans" - an additional third model, where previously only two had been identified. They don't claim their specimens are a common ancestor of great apes and humans. What they say is there now exists evidence of a third way by which a common ancestor could have developed bipedalism.

That is a totally different set of statements to your "monkey that they say was transitioning to human".

You write that "I understand that a dog has never decended from a cat and no moose has decended from a horse. I am giving you examples of what evolutionists are doing" but that's exactly what you were not giving me, you were inventing examples that no evolutionist had ever advanced. If you actually provide an example of what an evolutionist has genuinely advanced, as opposed to cats turning into dogs or horses into moose, we can both stand on the same ground and examine what is really debatable.

You note emphatically that "there is never an increase of DNA. You NEVER see an increase in DNA in any mutation except for in the case of down syndrome which results in a bad outcome, not a new species". I would point out that a new species can result even with no new DNA being created but your broader issue may be that you see no way in which new DNA can be created. Which of those two limbs would you like me to explore?

[xfrodobagginsx]

The thing is, they said nothing remotely like that at all.

The article you're discussing is at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-019-1731-0 and the Abstract is free as are all the photos and measurements in the supplement.

Nothing about monkeys transitioning to human. Nothing about monkeys, come to that.

They say there have been two proposed routes for the development of walking on two legs (bipedalism) in hominins:



They are describing a third route based on measurements of ape specimens:



They are not proposing "a whole new common ancestor", they are describing the remains of one extinct species of ape which predates both present-day apes and present-day humans. They don't claim it is an ancestor species of any present-day ape or any present-day human. They have found fossil remains of a single species, identified primarily, I think, on the basis of twenty teeth as well as the twenty-ish bones. They have described the ape species and they have claimed evidence of extended limb clambering on the basis of the complete limb bones they have measured. Finally they say that this third model "provides a model for the common ancestor of great apes and humans" - an additional third model, where previously only two had been identified. They don't claim their specimens are a common ancestor of great apes and humans. What they say is there now exists evidence of a third way by which a common ancestor could have developed bipedalism.

That is a totally different set of statements to your "monkey that they say was transitioning to human".

You write that "I understand that a dog has never decended from a cat and no moose has decended from a horse. I am giving you examples of what evolutionists are doing" but that's exactly what you were not giving me, you were inventing examples that no evolutionist had ever advanced. If you actually provide an example of what an evolutionist has genuinely advanced, as opposed to cats turning into dogs or horses into moose, we can both stand on the same ground and examine what is really debatable.

You note emphatically that "there is never an increase of DNA. You NEVER see an increase in DNA in any mutation except for in the case of down syndrome which results in a bad outcome, not a new species". I would point out that a new species can result even with no new DNA being created but your broader issue may be that you see no way in which new DNA can be created. Which of those two limbs would you like me to explore?

The bones are that of ape. Whether it has a longer than average limb or not or whether it walks upright, it's nothing more than an ape. It's not a transitional species between ape and any other animal. Show me a half one animal kind, half other animal kind. All you are doing is showing me an ape that has features a bit different than the average ape. It's just like there are people who can do strange things, like pop their eyeballs out, or contortionists, or some people have hair all over their body, or a woman with a beard. These people used to be used in the circus. They are still human. You can't look at them and say that they are an entirely new species. That's what's happening here with this breed of apes. They may be a bit different and out of the norm, but they are still apes. Nothing more.

[spot]

The bones are that of ape. Whether it has a longer than average limb or not or whether it walks upright, it's nothing more than an ape. It's not a transitional species between ape and any other animal. Show me a half one animal kind, half other animal kind. All you are doing is showing me an ape that has features a bit different than the average ape. It's just like there are people who can do strange things, like pop their eyeballs out, or contortionists, or some people have hair all over their body, or a woman with a beard. These people used to be used in the circus. They are still human. You can't look at them and say that they are an entirely new species. That's what's happening here with this breed of apes. They may be a bit different and out of the norm, but they are still apes. Nothing more.

Nothing in the research article claims anything different to what I have just quoted. You have set up a non-existent Aunt Sally [1] just to have something to criticize - you actually say nothing different to the article itself. The problem is that you see things in it which don't appear.

By all means find something real, as opposed to alleging something was said which wasn't. I'd very much like to discuss a real claim we can both look at and criticize together. Your "monkey transition" story gave neither of us anything to explore.





[1]: The term Aunt Sally is a synonym for a "straw man" fallacy, whereby an argument or idea is misrepresented so as to make it easier to refute.

[xfrodobagginsx]

Nothing in the research article claims anything different to what I have just quoted. You have set up a non-existent Aunt Sally [1] just to have something to criticize - you actually say nothing different to the article itself. The problem is that you see things in it which don't appear.

By all means find something real, as opposed to alleging something was said which wasn't. I'd very much like to discuss a real claim we can both look at and criticize together. Your "monkey transition" story gave neither of us anything to explore.

[1]: The term Aunt Sally is a synonym for a "straw man" fallacy, whereby an argument or idea is misrepresented so as to make it easier to refute.

I don't see it that way, but if you do, then ok. So, what you are saying is that evolutionists don't believe that man evolved from apes/monkeys, but from "common ancestor". Exactly what is this so called common ancestor?

Ok, so going off the report that I was given, they only found 2 leg bones and there were 6 monkeys/apes. They found 1 1/2 vertebrae of a spine and because of the angle of the spine they concluded that it had walked up right like a man, even though, they didn't have the rest of the spine to even verify it. They also found a few other bones that showed that they had different size arms as well than normal monkeys/apes. Anyway, the article that you presented doesn't give me any information on this other than a summery unless I am missing something.

I think that the straw man is very real. I think that these types of finds are intentionally exaggerated in order to present the perception that they were our ancestors. You can disagree with that, but that's what they do constantly. Then when confronted by Creationists, they come back and say, "But man didn't evolved from monkeys or apes, we had a common ancestor".

So, I would like you to point me to this so called "Common Ancestor" that I believe to be non existent.

[spot]

I don't see it that way, but if you do, then ok. So, what you are saying is that evolutionists don't believe that man evolved from apes/monkeys, but from "common ancestor". Exactly what is this so called common ancestor?

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I said was that the news story you mentioned had nothing to do with what you claimed it said, that's all. It had nothing to do with transitioning and nothing to do with monkeys. That's all. That's what I wrote. I did not write that "evolutionists don't believe that man evolved from apes/monkeys".

At any moment over the last four billion years or so there has been life on Earth. For all of this time, each individual has had one overriding biological imperative, to increase the number of copies of its own personal genetic code carried into the future. The primary mechanism for selecting which individual best achieves that goal has been natural variation of that genetic code. If the variation has improved the individual's chance then on average, over all individuals, that benefit has increased the number of copies passed down the timeline.

There have been lots of strategies to achieve this variation, some of which (for the last half billion years at least) have been sexual.

A common ancestor is the fellow you find back along the tree if you take any two sexually-reproducing individuals anywhere in history and follow the track through all their ancestors until you find the same ancestor. If they reproduced sexually and you have two parents for each individual then it's a lot easier to track the generations than if they didn't - other forms of reproduction give alternative numbers of parents.

You and I have a most recent common ancestor, and that most recent common ancestor was a human who lived some time in the past. Depending on whether you're related to a British colonist or not, that most recent common ancestor lived anything between a hundred years ago and roughly a hundred thousand years ago.

None of the individuals dug up by the researchers in that paper are likely to be your ancestor. None of the same-species individuals, which were capable of reproducing with those that were found, were necessarily your ancestor - that species might have easily have become extinct without leaving any successor species alive on Earth today. But all those individuals dug up by the researchers in that paper are related to you, either as direct ancestors or as descendants of earlier ones. The process of descending is a tree, you're on it and I'm on it and those individuals dug up by the researchers in that paper are on it and so is the apple you had for lunch, it's the only ancestry tree there is on Earth. The tree is explored these days using comparative genomics.

[xfrodobagginsx]

No, I'm not saying that at all. What I said was that the news story you mentioned had nothing to do with what you claimed it said, that's all. It had nothing to do with transitioning and nothing to do with monkeys. That's all. That's what I wrote. I did not write that "evolutionists don't believe that man evolved from apes/monkeys".

At any moment over the last four billion years or so there has been life on Earth. For all of this time, each individual has had one overriding biological imperative, to increase the number of copies of its own personal genetic code carried into the future. The primary mechanism for selecting which individual best achieves that goal has been natural variation of that genetic code. If the variation has improved the individual's chance then on average, over all individuals, that benefit has increased the number of copies passed down the timeline.

There have been lots of strategies to achieve this variation, some of which (for the last half billion years at least) have been sexual.

A common ancestor is the fellow you find back along the tree if you take any two sexually-reproducing individuals anywhere in history and follow the track through all their ancestors until you find the same ancestor. If they reproduced sexually and you have two parents for each individual then it's a lot easier to track the generations than if they didn't - other forms of reproduction give alternative numbers of parents.

You and I have a most recent common ancestor, and that most recent common ancestor was a human who lived some time in the past. Depending on whether you're related to a British colonist or not, that most recent common ancestor lived anything between a hundred years ago and roughly a hundred thousand years ago.

None of the individuals dug up by the researchers in that paper are likely to be your ancestor. None of the same-species individuals, which were capable of reproducing with those that were found, were necessarily your ancestor - that species might have easily have become extinct without leaving any successor species alive on Earth today. But all those individuals dug up by the researchers in that paper are related to you, either as direct ancestors or as descendants of earlier ones. The process of descending is a tree, you're on it and I'm on it and those individuals dug up by the researchers in that paper are on it and so is the apple you had for lunch, it's the only ancestry tree there is on Earth. The tree is explored these days using comparative genomics.

I understand the theory of evolution. I went to public schools all of my life and took evolution classes in College. I am no expert in the area, but I am familiar with the basics.

Some questions I have for you:

What do you think about Irreducible complexity? Doesn't that prove that evolution is impossible? I believe it does.

How would the two sexes have evolved? It's impossible. One creature would have had to evolved all of the male parts, which would be a huge undertaking seeing how complex the male reproductive system is, then another of the same species would have to evolve the female parts, which would be another astronomical coincidence seeing how complex that would be. Next they would have to be in close proximity to each other. They would have to have a desire to mate. Then they would have to survive long enough to mate. Then the female would have to survive long enough to bear the child(ren). The odds of this happening would be a number greater than the number of atoms in the Universe.

Next: How did matter and Energy come about out of nothing to create the Universe? This would directly violate the laws of Conservation of Energy and Thermodynamics, which state that matter and energy cannot be destroyed. They can only be converted one to another.

Have you honestly looked at the arguments for Irreducible Complexity? If hundreds or thousands of parts have to be in place at the same time for something to be useful, such as the eye, how can you explain that evolving?

[spot]

Have you honestly looked at the arguments for Irreducible Complexity? If hundreds or thousands of parts have to be in place at the same time for something to be useful, such as the eye, how can you explain that evolving?

No, I have never heard the expression used before. I'd happily answer you if, for example, you provide your preferred educational resource to put me in the picture. Wikipedia tells me the term dates from 1996, long after I left school. The article then says the idea "was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research", which may be as good an argument against as I could come up with if I knew the field.

I note also the sentence "Irreducible complexity has become central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but the scientific community, which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience, rejects the concept of irreducible complexity".

Both of the quotes I just used are referenced within the article.

I think my problem is that you refer to "Irreducible complexity" as fact, when it is clearly disputed by people I would give credence to. The subject is on the same level as Flat Earth as far as I can see. Both are matters of belief. I share neither. The Wikipedia article List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design provides many good reasons for thinking this outright dismissal to be reasonable.

Perhaps we could start again on the basis that neither of us is allowed to advance a belief as an argument. That way we can only introduce concepts we both agree are factual, I'd be interested to see what common ground we uncover. I'd very much like to do that.

The problem with asking "how can you explain [the eye] evolving" is that the answer is very long. You start with a patch of skin which is more light or heat sensitive (they're the same thing) than its neighboring skin and then you make it more effective by dimpling it - to concentrate the effect - and increasing its nerve network to add discrimination. It's my understanding that a lot of the evolutionary history of an organ such as the eye is replayed step by step in foetal development, but I may turn out to be oversimplifying with that notion. On the other hand, perhaps I'm not.

If every single developmental step in evolving an eye improves the chance of passing on copies of an individual's genes then bingo, add time and you get an eye. The world-view of Intelligent Designers is being squeezed into narrower and narrower spaces as each of these developmental steps is uncovered and shown to be incrementally beneficial. The bogus part of your question is "if hundreds or thousands of parts have to be in place at the same time for something to be useful". Plainly they don't. The end state is not implied in the initial steps, the simple initial steps themselves are significant aids to survival.

[xfrodobagginsx]

No, I have never heard the expression used before. I'd happily answer you if, for example, you provide your preferred educational resource to put me in the picture. Wikipedia tells me the term dates from 1996, long after I left school. The article then says the idea "was based on the mistaken assumption that evolution relies on improvement of existing functions, ignoring how complex adaptations originate from changes in function, and disregarding published research", which may be as good an argument against as I could come up with if I knew the field.

I note also the sentence "Irreducible complexity has become central to the creationist concept of intelligent design, but the scientific community, which regards intelligent design as pseudoscience, rejects the concept of irreducible complexity".

Both of the quotes I just used are referenced within the article.

I think my problem is that you refer to "Irreducible complexity" as fact, when it is clearly disputed by people I would give credence to. The subject is on the same level as Flat Earth as far as I can see. Both are matters of belief. I share neither. The Wikipedia article List of scientific bodies explicitly rejecting intelligent design provides many good reasons for think this outright dismissal to be reasonable.

Perhaps we could start again on the basis that neither of us is allowed to advance a belief as an argument. That way we can only introduce concepts we both agree are factual, I'd be interested to see what common ground we uncover. I'd very much like to do that.

The problem with asking "how can you explain [the eye] evolving" is that the answer is very long. You start with a patch of skin which is more light or heat sensitive (they're the same thing) than its neighboring skin and then you make it more effective by dimpling it - to concentrate the effect - and increasing its nerve network to add discrimination. It's my understanding that a lot of the evolutionary history of an organ such as the eye is replayed step by step in foetal development, but I may turn out to be oversimplifying with that notion. On the other hand, perhaps I'm not.

If every single developmental step in evolving an eye improves the chance of passing on copies of an individual's genes then bingo, add time and you get an eye. The world-view of Intelligent Designers is being squeezed into narrower and narrower spaces as each of these developmental steps is uncovered and shown to be incrementally beneficial. The bogus part of your question is "if hundreds or thousands of parts have to be in place at the same time for something to be useful". Plainly they don't. The end state is not implied in the initial steps, the simple initial steps themselves are significant aids to survival.

Yes, I have noticed that Wiki is now taking a proactive approach to explaining things that don't line up with the Liberal view point as somehow "pseudoscience". They didn't used to do this, but obviously, they are now caving to pressure from the Liberal community.

Irreducible Complexity is fact. It is a fact that in order for the eye to work, there are hundreds or thousands of parts that are dependent on each other and could not work independently of each other, according to Scientists. The 2 sexes are a fact and it is a fact that both sexual reproductive systems are very complex and would have had to evolved independently of one another, while the creature was still reproducing a sexually. There would be no benefit for any of the parts to evolve until they are complete and able to function and both sexes would have to have developed compatible one to another. Plus, once in place, both creatures would have to be in the same proximity to mate with each other, they would have to have the desire to mate with each other. What would happen to the a sexual aspect of it's reproduction? It's just impossible. Evolutionists need eons of time to explain their false conclusions. If what you say is true, why don't see organs that are forming in animals that have no use, but will some day be useful? That couldn't have happened with the eye.

It's not even close to being Flat Earth. Flat Earth is easily debunked and truly not based on Science. Creationism and Irreducible Complexity IS based on actual Science. Truthfully, Evolutionists are afraid to debate Creationists because they usually get their butts handed to them. I listen to a talk show and this talk show host is a Creationist and not even a Scientist, but he has Evolutionists with PHDs on his show and he frustrates them to the point where they hang up on him because he makes points that they cannot refute or explain. I have heard it time and time again on his show.

Everyone starts with a belief. Everyone is influenced by them. It's impossible to research without some sort of belief as your base, and draw any meaningful conclusions about the data. I see this in politics as well. There are people who say that you can't let your personal beliefs like your religion dictate your policies, but the non religious do the very same thing. Everyone's beliefs dictate their decisions. So I don't see how we could discuss this without having our own pre conceived ideas about things.

The amount of time to get an eye would be astronomical. The number of years would be equal to the size of the amount of atoms in the Universe years.

[spot]

The amount of time to get an eye would be astronomical. The number of years would be equal to the size of the amount of atoms in the Universe years.

And yet you believe in a self-created omnipotent eternal God which can design and create an eye where previously no eye or design existed? And that's the sum of where the eye originated?

And you don't think this is contradictory or inconsistent?

[xfrodobagginsx]

And yet you believe in a self-created omnipotent eternal God which can design and create an eye where previously no eye or design existed? And that's the sum of where the eye originated?

And you don't think this is contradictory or inconsistent?

Yes, that is the only way it could have happened. God's power is above all of the Laws of probability. He created them.

Think about the fact that it is Scientifically impossible for matter and energy to exist in the first place because it violates the Laws of Thermodynamics and Conservation of Energy.

How did the matter and energy here in violation with Scientific Law?