Re: Closed Debate Thread: Common Ancestry of Humans and Chimpanzees
- From: "Ray Martinez" <pyramidial@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 28 Jul 2005 16:58:20 -0700
RAY MARTINEZ, previously:
http://www.christiancourier.com/archives/missingLinks.htm
"When the late Louis B. Leakey, an anthropologist of world renown,
lectured at the University of the Pacific (in Stockton, California),
in February of 1967, he was asked regarding "the missing link." He
responded: "There is no one link missing - there are hundreds of
links
missing."
RICHARD CLAYTON:
Well, yes. There is always more to be found-- as we have discussed
before. But do you think that Mr. Leakey doubted that humans and other
apes have common ancestry?
MARTINEZ:
Your answer intentionally twists the quote to have said so called
missing links were indeed found.
The quote and its fact says there are no missing link or links
discovered.
CLAYTON:
But do you think that Mr. Leakey doubted that humans and other
apes have common ancestry?
MARTINEZ:
Leakey assumes hominid evolution is a fact but he is honest to report
that the crucial evidence supporting the assumption is non-existent.
Leakey produces a fact based on his anthropologic research (hundreds of
missing links), I accept the claim as fact, and now I ask you what
evidence did Leakey base his assumption on ?
Leakey was a naturalist, so hominid evolution MUST be true because
Genesis is not an option. If humans did evolve then the missing link
type of evidence should be abundant - but it is not as Leakey confirms.
The reason there are hundreds of links missing - is it because the
assumption and theory is not true ?
The scientific data, that is the utter lack of any credible objective
volume of missing links is scientific evidence supporting the evidence
of Genesis which says Adam was suddenly created by God.
Museums across the world have erected exhibits purportedly showing
human evolution a fact. Yet, I have NEVER seen ANY exhibit showing a
genuine transitional fossil, instead these displays all show fake
plaster cast reproductions of the supposed genuine articles.
Why ?
If human evolution is a fact then why isn't there voluminous genuine
fossils in these exhibits ?
Answer: Because these exhibits are displaying fossils they hope to find
someday. The outright travesty and deception is the deliberate
appearance of proven fact based on undisputed transitional evidence in
existence.
The lack of evidence logically means the theory is not true.
MARTINEZ, previously:
Richard Milton confirms that in 1997 the situation had not changed:
"In fact, more than 100 years of intense collecting by well funded
professional expeditions has not yet yielded any of the remains that
Darwin envisaged, and Africa and the Middle East (the areas "most
likely") have now been thoroughly searched. There are early apelike
remains and there are early hominid remains. Indeed the store of
primate fossils has been multiplied a thousand-fold since Darwin. But
the only "missing link" so far discovered is the bogus Piltdown man,
where a practical joker associated the jaw of an orangutan with the
skull of a human." ["Shattering Myths of Darwinism, page 109, 1997]
CLAYTON:
As I have asked before-- and you have failed to answer-- why would Homo
erectus or Homo habilis not qualify as a link between man and other
apes?
MARTINEZ:
I addressed Homo habilis here:
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/ddaed732cf1823d7?hl=en
"The find has been reevaluated and suggested that one of the hand bones
is a piece of vertebra, two more bones belong to a tree dwelling
monkey, and six others from some unspecified nonhominid. Homo habilis
is human - not a missing link and is calculated to have had a small
brain - perhaps half the size of the average modern human. Dr. A.J.
White pointed out, the habilines were also small in stature, so their
brains were not small in relation to their body size, rather like
modern pygmies. Darwinists have overlooked the fact that only a few
hundred miles to the east, in the forests of Zaire, are the Mbuti
people who are on average only 4'- 6" tall, and compare in every way
with Homo habilis." source: Milton, "Shattering Myths Darwinism", pages
206-7 [1997] quoting
White, "Wonderfully Made", [1989]
Richard:
What refutes the habilines from being ancient descendants of the Mbuti
of Zaire ?
Now regarding Homo erectus, are you specifically talking about the
Dubois find ?
But at any rate I have already posted two refutations from the same
link above:
"Australopithecus was established as an extinct ape in 1954 by the
comparitive anatomy research of zoologist Solly Zuckerman."
source: Milton, "Shattering Myths of Darwinism", page 204, quoting
Zuckerman, [1954] "Correlation of changes in the evolution of the
higher primates" in Huxley, Hardy, and Ford (eds). "Evolution as a
Process."
"Dr. Charles Oxnard, professor of anatomy and human biology at the
University of Western Australia, conducted a computer analysis of
Australopithecine fossils. Oxnard, (a Darwinist) concluded in his 1984
book, "The Order of Man", that the fossils represent an "extinct ape
and is unconnected with humankind's ancestry". page 204.
Richard Milton:
"The story of Dubois's discovery of Java man, like Gideon Mantell's
discovery of the first dinosaur, is a parable of primate paleontology
in the past 100 years. Discoveries are few and fortuitous, yet it is
extraordinary how they are always deliberately sought by their
discoverers. The reconstructions, the names bestowed, and the
attributions to human or ape inheritance blow this way and that in the
wind of scientific opinion. In the end each find has its supporters and
detractors but settles nothing.
This question of attribution has bedeviled every "missing link"
discovery of the twentieth century. The pattern is a recurring one. The
remains themselves are always meager. The first attribution is always
that the being whose remains have been discovered shows both human and
ape characteristics, and is therefore a genuine transitional type - a
real missing link. Then the attribution is questioned: the characters
ascribed to apes are actually within the range of human characters; or
ape remains postdate the finds by a large margin; or the reconstruction
work is over imaginative; sometimes simple mistakes of identification
are made perhaps due to disease or malformation of bones.
The position today is that all the fossil remains which were previously
assigned some intermediate status between apes and humans have later
been definitely reassigned into the categories of extinct ape or human,
and this reassignment has been accepted by all but the most fanatical
devotees of this or that fossil. END QUOTE pages 198, 199
CLAYTON:
As I asked you before, and you did not answer: What facts do you
dispute, and why? Please be as specific as possible. Thus far you have
relied almost entirely on quotations. Science is not religion; it does
not depend on the revealed word of prophets-- and besides, for every
biologist who pooh-poohs evolution, I can certainly find three more who
firmly state that it is the cornerstone of modern biology. (See also:
"Project Steve.") Please address the evidence.
MARTINEZ:
I protest the assumption of macroevolution being passed off as
supported by evidence - macro is assumed.
Then your quote above says I rely on quotations.
How else does a person produce facts as opposed to unsupported
assertions ?
I rely on the facts those quotes establish THEN I make my
point/argument.
CLAYTON:
Science is not religion; it does not depend on the revealed word of
prophets
MARTINEZ:
The prophets of science are scientists.
I trust Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Daniel, and Paul over axe grinding
atheists like Darwin, Hawking, or Feynman.
But your sudden attempted religious smear assumes science and religion
are at odds and tries to pit one against the other as if a person must
choose.
As for "Project Steve": the Bible portrays the majority to always be
wrong. That is majorities found IN the Bible: the unbeliever majority
through-out the Bible is wrong and damned by God for various reasons.
Project Steve perfectly symbolizes and represents the objects in
reality that correspond to the Romans 1 wrath of God penalty of insight
removal for refusing to credit God as Creator. This is the one common
denominator all you Darwinists possess: an evil refusal to credit God
as Creator = the penalty of a darkened blinded mind to the obviousness
of ID. And you thought that YOU rejected God - in fact, He has rejected
you. The fact that macroevolution is assumed with no commensurate
amount of evidence confirms this penalty claim. Darwinists CANNOT
embrace ID because that would mean the penalty claim of Romans 1 is
false.
MARTINEZ, previously:
"Clayton's accusation of quote mine was in response to my use of the
following quotes by evolutionist Henry Gee:
ALL the alleged fossil evidence, puportedly supporting human evolution
from "10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of
living creatures, can be fitted into a small box"(1)
Gee wrote as fact the quoted portion above.
I accept the information as fact."
CLAYTON:
Actually, what I wrote was "Here you launch into a 'quote mine' rather
than address the evidence I posted. Why?"
MARTINEZ:
The Gee material establishes as fact for the interval stated that the
fossil remains are scant.
I accept the information as fact and point out, for the interval
stated, this logically does not support the assumption and claim of
hominid evolution.
This is not a quote mine but you seem to think that the constant
repetition of the phrase somehow helps your cause.
And I have addressed the evidence you posted. If you truly feel I have
not then make a list and be specific ?
CLAYTON:
The information is not factual. Here, for example, is a list of hominid
finds:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
Of particular note in this instance are the famed "Lucy," who was
nearly half complete, and the "Turkana Boy," an almost complete Homo
erectus find.
I also pointed out, of course, that Henry Gee took exception to the way
his words were used out of context. "Darwinian evolution by natural
selection is taken as a given in IN SEARCH OF DEEP TIME, and this is
made clear several times... For the Discovery Institute to quote from
my
book without reference to this is mischievous... The use by
creationists
of selective, unauthorized quotations, possibly with intent to mislead
the public undermines their position as self-appointed guardians of
public values and morals."
MARTINEZ:
You appear to contradict yourself here.
On one hand you plainly state that "the inforamtion is not factual" in
regards to the Gee quote:
"10 to 5 million years ago, several thousand generations of
living creatures, can be fitted into a small box"(1)
THEN you paste a T.O. fossil link THEN paste a notation about alleged
misuse of Gee quotes and data by creationists.
1) Please tell me why Gee is in error ?
2) What does the quote and its fact have to do with the link ?
3) I have generously said everytime that I cite Gee that he is a
Darwinist/cladist who believes hominid evolution is a fact. I take
specific facts produced by him and point out how they do not support
his assumptions or conclusions.
You apparently have no idea as to how references and source quotes are
used and seem to think that Darwinists, and facts they produce, should
never be used to harm their assumptions or conclusions.
In reality, it doesn't matter what Gee is, his scientific data in no
way supports hominid evolution unless you forsake logic.
I can show you one of the greatest Egyptologists of all time
(Gardiner), who after a lifetime of studying ancient pyramid texts
concludes the Egyptians were anything but an advanced society capable
of producing a scientific wonder - a people up to their chins in
primitive barbaric idol worship. I can rightly take his conclusions and
offer them as evidence that the Egyptians had nothing to do with the
building of the Great Pyramid even though Gardiner was a naturalist.
Your incessant parroting of "quote mine" deliberately avoids how I use
any given fact.
http://www.jqjacobs.net/anthro/paleo/scavenging.html
MARTINEZ, previously:
"Fossils, though few and rare, are by for the most important evidence
we have of hominid evolution.
In addition to the scant evidence offered by fossils..."
The above site offers further confirmation of my point:
So much based on so little.
"few, rare, and scant" are not adjectives associated with anything
mildly supported much less proven.
I accept the site terminology as fact, then point out that logically
these admissions are not associated with a theory that is well
supported much less proven.
CLAYTON:
So, do you think Mr. Jacobs rejects evolution? Or do you just want to
cherry-pick passages that you think will support your argument?
MARTINEZ:
Jacobs is a Darwinist.
His adjectives chosen to describe the amount of physical fossil
evidence in existence does not logically support the claim.
If hominid evolution were true adjectives like "few, rare, and scant"
would not be used.
Sagan said "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence"
I accept these facts and say the admissions do not even mildly support
the theory much less prove it.
So why do Darwinists believe it ?
Because Genesis is not an option.
My on-going point:
Darwinists ADMIT the evidence supposedly supporting hominid evolution
is "few, rare, and scant."
I accept as fact and point out the most extraordinary claim of all time
is based on "few, rare, and scant" = adjectives associated with
something not considered supported much less true.
It doesn't matter what the worldview of the person who produces facts
reflecting the amount of fossil evidence, the dimunitive inventory is
not conducive with an amount of evidence one would expect an
extraordinary claim to be supported by.
The reason why the evidence is "few, rare, and scant" - logically is
because the theory is not true, and the "few, rare, and scant" evidence
is highly subjective and disputed and has no clear independant
objective value apart from the needs of the Naturalist Worldview.
Why do you accept as fact a theory that has physical evidence described
as "few, rare, and scant" ?
Answer: The evidence of Genesis is not an option.
"few, rare, and scant" = Genesis is true.
"few, rare, and scant" = a paucity that can be corrupted as the
Darwinist needs it to be.
Remember, Gee said for the interval stated, that amount could fit into
a "small box" - Gee is a Darwinist.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/specimen.html
"This list includes fossils that are important for either their
scientific or historic interest, or because they are often mentioned by
creationists. One sometimes reads that all hominid fossils could fit in
a coffin, or on a table, or a billiard table."
CLAYTON:
As I pointed out, and you cut away: "While fossils are rare compared to
the number of organisms who have lived-- fossilization is uncommon,
after all-- there's plenty of evidence out there. There are museums
full
of fossils and archaeological displays, Ray! Haven't you ever been in
one?"
You can say that fossils are "scant" compared to the number of
organisms who have ever lived; fossilization is rare, and some animals
simply do not fossilize well. But despite their comparative rarity
MARTINEZ:
Fossilization is rare - I agree.
Too bad - you cannot assume into a database non-existent evidence.
Too bad your theory is based on hypothetical evidence.
This is why the Bible was written: to preserve facts that would
otherwise be lost to the arbitrary and capricious "kindness" of time
and environment.
Could it be the same reason why there is a paucity of physical evidence
for ancient Israel in Egypt and Sinai account for the same reason why
there is a paucity of the same type of evidence for hominid evolution ?
But the lack of evidence for Israel is held against the Bible unlike
human evolution claims. But this obvious double standard is propagated
by atheists and thus easily explained.
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/1973
"Most recently, David Begun concluded an article in Science magazine
titled "The Earliest Hominins-Is Less More?," by saying: "[T]he
level
of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders
irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable. The solution is in
the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!" (2004,
303:1479-1480, emp. added). Although hominid and human fossils are the
most sought-after fossils in the world, scientists readily admit that
few human fossils have been found"
CLAYTON:
Do you think that David Begun disputes human evolution?
MARTINEZ:
Of course not.
I accept the quote and its information as fact and wonder aloud "what
on Earth are you Darwinists basing your hominid evolution claims on ?"
Facts like these prove hominid evolution is not proven much less
supported, but is ASSUMED.
Assumptions are not evidence.
We have Naturalist worldview and philosophy being packaged as science
for the single purpose of attempting to objectify anti-Biblical
worldviews.
The Begun quote fully supports all my other quotes/facts that hominid
evolution lacks direct evidence and is assumed, but society IS NOT told
this, we are told human evolution is a scientific fact. If anyone cares
to actually look - human evolution is assumed based on "few, rare, and
scant" fossil evidence.
CLAYTON:
Of course, that's the beauty of science; it does not rest on the
authority of individuals or on single events. The human-chimp genetic
comparison can be (and has been) done multiple times, yielding the same
results each time.
MARTINEZ:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618091572/104-6024959-8687968?v=glance
Steve Olson, "Mapping Human History" [2002]
>>From the above book.
Page 16:
"We often hear, for example, that human beings and chimpanzees are
remarkably alike genetically. And, when stained and compared, some
human and chimp chromosomes in fact cannot be visually distinguished
from one another. A careful comparison turns up the tell-tale
differences, however. Chimps have 24 pairs of chromosomes, not 23, and
some of the banding patterns are subtly different.
On nine of the chromosomes, certain segments are flipped in humans
compared with chimps. On other chromosomes, extra material is tacked
onto both ends, or some is missing. END QUOTE
MARTINEZ:
Prior, I accepted similarity as fact and said "so what ?"
How does similarity prove hominid evolution over millions of years ?
Answer: Only if you assume similarity is evidence for that. It is only
evidence when the massive assumptions and needs of the Naturalist
Worldview is engaged.
In reality, similarity being evidence for the resolve requires a
massive leap of faith.
But as it turns out chimps and modern humans are not genetically alike.
PREVIOUSLY POSTED LINK EXCERPT:
> What if human and chimp DNA was even 96% homologous? What would that
> mean? Would it mean that humans could have 'evolved' from a common
> ancestor with chimps? Not at all. The amount of information in the 3
> billion base pairs in the DNA of every human cell has been estimated
> to be equivalent to that in 1,000 books of encyclopaedia size. If
> humans were 'only' 4% different this still amounts to 120 million
base
> pairs, equivalent to approximately 12 million words, or 40 large
books
> of information. This is surely an impossible barrier for mutations
> (random changes) to cross.
CLAYTON:
This is a laughable handwave. If my father and I have very similar DNA,
isn't that evidence that we are related? If foxes, dogs, and wolves all
have substantially homologous DNA, would you consider that evidence
that
they are related? The writer instead invokes special pleading,
suggesting that somehow genetic homology means something different in
this instance that it does the rest of the time. Then he merely asks
the
reader to accept his assertion that this is "surely an impossible
barrier for mutations to cross." To which I ask: "Why?" Please be as
specific and detailed as possible.
MARTINEZ:
Then how do you explain the massive differences between chimp/ape
intelligence and modern human ?
Oh I forgot you just deny altogether that it is a chasm apart !
But whatever the actual truth is in regards to similarity the facts are
easily explained by the Creationist model pointing to one Almighty
Creator working from universal and common designs.
We have basic similarity altogether = proof of one Designer. One person
recently asked why a Designer didn't employ totally unique different
one-of-a-kind designs ?
Answer: Because that would support and give the impression that living
things were the product of chance and accidents.
Similarity, to whatever degree, supports one Designer and His
fingerprints and m.o.
"Special pleading ?"
The writer of the excerpt does not agree that animals are related via
macroevolution so there is no special pleading. But it doesn't matter;
chimps and modern humans are genetically far apart.
CLAYTON:
Except we really aren't all that different. We are more bipedal, and
have sparser body hair, but across the board, we are physically more
similar to apes than to any other animal. Chimps and gorillas also
exhibit several typically "human" psychological traits, too, like a
sense of humor, a sense of fair play, self-awareness, and the ability
to
lie.
MARTINEZ:
Asserting black is white = the necessary misuse of logic Darwinists
typically must resort to.
Wells, "Icons of Evolution" (2000)
>
> page 46:
>
> "Comparing DNA sequences is very complex. An actual segment of DNA
may
> contain thousands of subunits, lining them up to start a comparison
is
> a tricky task and different alignments can give very different
> results."
CLAYTON:
This is true but misleading; genetics is an intricate science, and
there are multiple ways to describe the degree of similarity between
two
sets of DNA. But all of them agree that humans and other apes are
closely related-- and, interestingly enough, the degree to which they
show relation between humans, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans is
consistent between different methods of measurement.
MARTINEZ:
With the Olson evidence now posted I will await your reply.
PREVIOUSLY:
> According to Jonathan Wells, phylogeny is the evolutionary history
of
> a group of organisms, and modern molecular biology is based on DNA
and
> protein comparisons.
>
> Page 51:
>
> "A 1996 study using 88 proteins sequence grouped rabbitts with
primates instead of rodents"(4)
>
> "A 1998 analysis of 13 genes in 19 animal species placed sea urchins
among chordates."(5)
>
> "Another 1998 analysis based on 12 proteins put cows closer to
whales
than to horses."(6)
>
MARTINEZ: "As was noted above genetics is very complex.
>
The facts above are monkey wrenches in the evolutionary scheme of
things. But the alleged similarity of chimp DNA with human somehow
proves we evolved from a chimp ancestor over millions of years ?"
CLAYTON:
Actually, no, these are not monkey wrenches. The first is a classic
example of poor methodology. Here is a post from John Harshman,
describing in detail what he did wrong:
"In this case he took a rabbit, a rodent, a primate, and an outgroup
(sometimes different species for different genes, but always only 4)
and
compared the 3 possible trees. The one in which rabbits and primates go
together fit the data better under his analysis. But 4-species
comparisons, when branches are long, which they are here, are
especially
vulnerable to long-branch attraction problems. Rodents, for example,
tend to have long branches, and would thus tend to be attracted to the
outgroup. And that's where they show up. The proper way to do this
would
be to use lots more species to construct a tree. People who have done
this find rodents and rabbits going together more often than not."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/talk.origins/msg/a1942d20c74d0c13?hl=en&;
Of course, cows being related to whales is not surprising; it has long
been known that whales are descended from terrestrial ungulates. It may
seem counterintuitive, but whales are indeed closer to artiodactyls
(cows) than perissodactyls (horses); this is a case of genetic evidence
confirming the fossil evidence. And sea urchins (Echinodermata) do
group
more closely to chordates than to other animal phyla like Porifera
(sponges) and Cnidaria (jellyfish) and Arthropoda (spiders, crabs,
insects, and other neat creepy-crawlies.)
MARTINEZ:
Does the Harshman quote take into account that Wells was citing studies
published by many evolutionists which were referenced ?
Cows being related to whales and less to horses surely upsets
evolutionary claims and fully supports the one Designer argument above.
But it is blatantly ridiculous to even think a sea creature eventually
morphed into whatever then a cow or any quadruped. All you have is
assertions supported by the weight of educational credentials asking us
to trust their assertions driven by the fright of Genesis being true.
There is no evidence of macroevolution - it is assumed based on the
needs of the anti-Biblical worldview.
A whale, like any species was designed and made by God just like the
evidence plainly says.
So Wells is correct - right ?
Ray Martinez
.
- Prev by Date: Re: Are there any turkey/chicken hybrids?
- Next by Date: Re: 6 dollars into 6,000+ its easy and it works!!!
- Previous by thread: Re: Closed Debate Thread: Common Ancestry of Humans and Chimpanzees
- Next by thread: Re: Closed Debate Thread: Common Ancestry of Humans and Chimpanzees
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
