Re: Another Stupid Evolutionary Peer Reviewed Published Paper

ur32212451 <ur32212451@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Human Evolution Seems to Be Accelerating

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,316375,00.html

"I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to
50,000 years ago and haven't changed," explained Henry C. Harpending,
an anthropologist at the University of Utah. "The opposite seems to be
true.""

Yes! Harpending admits it, the way one becomes an evolutionist is to
be raised into believing it's true; via a materialistic schooling
system, established religiously, and by materialists, who have taken
over the education system ever since their gods bestowed their
personal beliefs on an unsuspecting public, the two Charles's: Darwin
and Lyell.

You're putting quite a lot of words into his mouth there. I read this
as saying that according to the scientific paradigm under which he
received his scientific education, we're genetically pretty much
identical to our ancestors of 40,000 years ago.

He doesn't say anything about a requirement for religious indoctrination.

This is a good time to briefly state what is known about the Chimp and
Human evolutionary relationship. The Chimpanzee was not officially
considered to be the closest ancestor of humans until a DNA analysis
determined their DNA to be closest to humans. Thus it is now assumed
that based on DNA analysis, the chimp is our closest living
evolutionary ancestor.

Relative. Not all relatives are ancestors.

Before the DNA analysis, some evolutionists argued gorillas were our
closest (non-human) relatives, and others especially suggested
orangutans were our closest cousins because they could, and often did,
walk upright, and walking upright is considered a very important
feature in the Ape to Human evolution.

I once heard that chimps were genetically most similar to humans,
gorillas had the most similar living environment, and orangutans had
the most similar brain structure, or something like that.

I suppose that, compared to the rest of the animal kingdom, us great
apes are all pretty closely related.

A 7 million year old fossil of
a jaw and teeth was once considered to be a direct ancestor of humans.
They called this direct ancestor Ramapithicus. Afterward, it was
determined that the jaw and teeth to be identical to modern day
orangutans. Which goes to also show that either orangutans have not
evolved at all over 7 million years, or that the evolutionary dating
techniques are seriously flawed.

It doesn't show that orangutans haven't evolved at all over 7 million
years, just that their need for teeth, and thus probably their food,
hasn't changed during that time.

The most important fact about this assumed 6 million year old common
ancestor is that there is no scientific evidence that it existed
except that evolution theory requires it to exist, otherwise evolution
would simply be false.

Evolution theory doesn't require that at all. It predicts a common
ancestor, yes, and genetics and paleontology show that it must have
lived about 5-8 million years ago.

The gap between humans and chimps is so
enormous that any human will instantly recognize this fact
immediately; it does not take an evolutionary scientist to know this
is true.

The difference between humans and chimps is rather obvious, yes, but
our ancestors from 6 million years ago were also quite different from
us. And probably quite similar to the ancestors of the chimps at that
time.

"Our species is not static," Harpending added.

Of course it is true, Biblical literalists knew this, and also knew
about natural selection, before Charles Darwin was even born. Once
such famous Christian was William Paley,

William Paley was a Christian, yes, but a biblical literalist? Can
you provide references for that?

Upon reading Mendel's paper, Alfred Russell Wallace understood the
negative impact it has on Wallace's and Darwin's Theory of Evolution.
Mendelian Genetics restores fixity to the species as it explains the
existence of all observed variation in species without any further
need for new genetic information to come into existence, thus no need
for a Theory of Evolution.

But it does not explain the similarities between closely related species.
Mendel deals with selection and allele frequencies, but not with mutation
and speciation.


mcv.
--
Science is not the be-all and end-all of human existence. It's a tool.
A very powerful tool, but not the only tool. And if only that which
could be verified scientifically was considered real, then nearly all
of human experience would be not-real. -- Zachriel

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Human evolutionary origins for Zorg
    ... common ancestor and that people ... there's a serious difference between saying evolution ... what we know of humans. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Human behaviour: Killer instincts
    ... What can evolution say about why humans kill -- and about why we do so ... tendency to make war from our animal ancestors ... ... These are the ringing words of the 'Seville Statement on Violence', ...
    (soc.culture.romanian)
  • Re: The film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed
    ... It is evolution, and not me that says a species existed that was the evolutionary precursor to orangutans and humans, but was not either orangutan or human. ... When we look at off-chromosome humans, they are not "survival of the fittest" ready to compete and breed, hence -- as a scientist -- I have to doubt the explanation in favor of the observed Down's Syndrome children, as a demonstration that the proposed evolutionary explanation takes a lot of faith to accept as a possibility. ...
    (rec.arts.mystery)
  • Re: New falsifiable proposal/prediction of design
    ... But the possibility of "moving the goalposts" is why ... > to be "that which evolution can not cross". ... >>>If so, which characteristics, exactly, do you use to distinguish humans ... >>when conditions improve with the individual bacteria going back to their ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Couple questions for evolution experts
    ... >> process of evolution was occuring, did the human female birth canal ... If it were beneficial for the survival of the species, ... Why is it such a guessing game with humans? ... many atheists agree with those religious persons that evolution and religion are not alternatives. ...
    (talk.origins)