Some Evidence Against Evolution

Would you respond to post #51 in this topic.You have posted a lot of substance and I intend to respond. I am hard up for time, work, school, responsibilities leaves almost no time. I will catch up on Saturdays. I am sorry my snail speed ruins the satisfaction of posting and reply.

I'll respond to #51.The short answer is "yes".More importantly, secondhand quoting of a another secondhand quote (you quoted Milton quoting Leaky quoting Pilbeam!) isn't much to go on. What is the source of the Leaky quote? What is Leaky talking about in the original source, specifically? What is Pilbeam talking about, specifically? Not in Milton's words, but in Leaky's words or Pilbeam's words?I'll bet ya a nickel they aren't claiming that the evidence that apes and humans have a common ancestor is too meager. Wanna bet?

quote:

---

No, his peers in the study of nature did not think he was a heretic.

---

Aye, and they're probably spinning in their graves at being mistaken for the leaders of religious orthodoxy that nearly had him killed for the crime of discovering and publicizing *gasp* the truth (!)

quote:

---

Just for pure aguments sake:
If your "peers" think your a nut to start with whats the point of letting them review your work...

---

Hardly anybody knows who Milton is, so why would they be biased against him? There's nothing obviously nutty about attacking the supposed identification of specific human ancestors, so I don't see any reason why he couldn't have submitted to peer review. Judging from his exchange with Foley, however, it's highly unlikely that he could ever pass peer review, given his demonstrated level of knowledge and argument. Have you considered the possibility that he's actually incompetent?

Okeley-dokeley!Um, is that the same "post #51" where you said: A situation that hasn't changed... yet you want me to respond to a later post of yours first? I'd've thought that that would just give you yet more to have to answer, but okay... Well, fifteen miles is a long way in London. It's a long way, place-wise, in the UK generally. Try telling people in Leeds that Bradford is as-near-as-dammit the same place! By your reasoning, it's not so inaccurate to claim that Southampton's Tudor House Museum is in Winchester.But you miss the point. It doesn't really matter whether you said the NHM was in Teddington London, Kennington Oxfordshire or Pennington Hampshire. It is in fact in Kensington. The point is that someone, somewhere -- you? -- did such painstaking research when criticising this museum that... they don’t even know where it is. Nor did they bother to check -- it's not like it’s difficult to find out! Did they just stick a pin in a map of London?Well excuse me if I'm not bowled over by the force of the rest of the claims (especially since they're cobblers). What’s to comment on? Please provide us with the full context of either Leakey’s quote or Pilbeam’s original. Here is why you should.This has 'out-of-context quote' written all over it. But okay, since you asked nicely...Firstly, both Leakey and Pilbeam are as 'evolutionist' as they come. Why would they be saying that their discipline is bunk? It's what they have spent most of their lives studying. Care to hazard a guess just what, physically, they have been studying?Next, it would hardly be a surprise if "a smart scientist from another discipline" would think there's little to go on. There really isn't a vast quantity of hominin fossils by volume -- which is no surprise either; it's due to the taphonomic conditions where these things are found.This is not some great secret that palaeoanthropologists lay awake at night worrying will slip out. Hardly a book on the matter goes by without the very call for caution that Leakey / Pilbeam note.You could fit the entire hominin fossil record in the boot of, well maybe a large estate. (No, I won’t translate; Americans never bother!) But the question is, so what?It is not sheer quantity that matters, but what a highly experienced anatomist and palaeontologist can tell from what there is. Show, say, a zoologist, geneticist or chemist -- ‘smart scientists’, all -- the fossils, and no doubt they would think there’s too little to go on, since many other disciplines have no trouble obtaining the basic materials of their study: they are not aware of how much information can be gleaned from a mere tooth (let alone the many whole skulls we do have).Those who do study these things, however, are skilled at finding out as much as possible from small pieces. Like -- very like -- forensics. Want to tell what the hominid ate, armed only with a tooth? Look at the microscopic wear on the enamel. And so on.Therefore all Leakey / Pilbeam are warning us of is... well, he / they put it well enough themselves: "Neither David nor others involved in the search for mankind can take this advice, of course [because then they too may as well not bother], but we remain fully aware of the dangers of drawing conclusions from evidence that is so incomplete."The conclusions in question are not whether humans evolved -- that is plain to anyone with the slightest knowledge about the fossil record (and anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, genetics...) -- but how humans evolved. Are the skulls OH24 and KNM-ER 1470 two separate species (Homo habilis and rudolfensis), or male and female of the same species (habilis)... and if they’re two species, which one is ancestral to ergaster / African erectus? Did humans evolve from Homo erectus or H ergaster? Is ergaster a form of African erectus, or a distinct species? Is Australopithecus africanus on our direct lineage, or an offshoot, and where does garhi fit?Because the evidence is so incomplete, these are difficult questions. They may be -- probably are -- insoluble till there is more evidence. But that's okay. More evidence keeps on turning up. (Sign yourself up to Nature Science Update at the Nature website, and you’ll get regular emails. Hardly one will go by without more evidence for evolution, from one discipline or another.)But notice that, though the evidence to decide specifics is limited, there is enough evidence to pose the questions! We could not wonder just how KNM-WT 15000 is related to previous and later forms if we didn't have it! But we do, and a large car boot more.And before you say it, sure, we're assuming evolution when working out the relationships. But that's only because the evidence makes no sense at all if we don't! What else are we to conclude when, the more recent the hominin fossil, the more human-like it is? See the pic I posted of the skulls. And have a browse round here: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html The fossils there are just some of the bigger, more obvious ones. And if you really are interested, spend some time looking through Fossil Hominids: the evidence for human evolution .What else but evolution are we to conclude, when we each have a tiny tail in our bums, complete with muscles that cannot move it cos it's fused into a single piece, made of the same bones that make tails, and by the same genes that make tails.What else are we to make of us having a single chromosome that is near-identical to two separate ape ones, with ours having chomosome endy-pieces (telomeres) in its middle, clearly showing that in our lineage the two chromosomes fused? Every aspect of our biology is slight-variation-on-a-theme-of-ape. and it's not merely comparison and assumption: with DNA, we have the actual patterns that are passed down lineages. And ape patterns are most similar to ours.The number of fossils is in the thousands, btw, it's just that many are pieces of skull, rib, leg bone and teeth (you did know that teeth are one of the most characteristically distinct features of mammalian species, yeah?), which is why complete skulls are so precious (and hence why you won’t find them in many museums -- there’s quite a lot, but they’re dotted around!)And finally, as already indicated, we have reason to mistrust Milton as a reported of quotes, or anything else from real science. Yes. Well, not to prove it to creationists, since they generally have hermetically sealed, lead-lined, concrete-bunker brains (it is the world that’s wrong, if it disagrees with the Bible, you see). But to any reasonable, rational person, yes. What would you like to know about these fossils? Just ask!You could also try your library: look out for Klein’s The Human Career and Aiello & Dean’s Introduction to Human Evolutionary Anatomy.Oh, and Willow, I'm in no rush for your replies, personally; I'm just delighted that you're interested enough to reply! Don't worry about the impatient ones. Since you say you will be responding, that's fine, I won't hassle you... just yet .Cheers, DT[This message has been edited by Darwinsterrier, 12-05-2003]

I'm ripping this off of a poster at another forum, but I thought it would relate to your statement above:Macroevolution: Proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
Microevolution: Proven beyond even creationist's doubts.

None of the vehement opposition against Richard Milton was based on any content found in his book.My initial post quoted him as saying, "neo-Darwinists have not demonstrated conclusive scientific evidence to substantiate the theory...." Now I add the rest of the quote, "....in the same way that the National Physical Laboratory can demonstrate physical constants, The College of Surgeons can demonstrate the circulation of the blood, or the Greenwich Observatory can demonstrate the expanding universe."Another Milton quote: "I accept that there is persuasive circumstantial evidence for evolution, but I do not accept that there is ANY significant evidence that the mechanism driving that evolution is the neo-Darwinian mechanism of chance mutation coupled with natural selection."Richard Milton has been a science repoter for over 20 years. His book is brilliantly written and he is not a creationist. He has no pro- creationist ax to grind. Richard Milton is extremely credible which gives enormous weight to the aforementoned quotes.This is some evidence against evolution which is the claim of this topic.Moving on....Milton contends that the forces of neo-Darwinism react to dissent the exact same way a fundementalist christian protects the dogma of their holy writ.The Dawkins crowd supposedly arrive at truth rationally but protect it irrationally. Dissent is not tolerated because that would jeopardize our foundational beliefs and those beliefs are untouchable.
Scientism is the fundementalism of science according to Professor Huston Smith - history has repeated itself on the other side of the street.Now that the pendulum has swung our way, we will defend and maintain evolution with the exact same rage and methods used by our conquered enemy the religionists.Anyone who challenges chance mutation and natural selection, and the existence of bones that we say are transitional missing links then these persons are subversive and fail the litmus test. Access to the masses is thus denied.The core problem with the empire of scientism and the neo-Darwinists who rule it is the misuse of power. The cure for misuse is right use.Remove the muzzles and allow dissent the outlet it must have or deceive yourself into believing that history will exempt you from the fate of your nefarious predecessors. You're evolving into a "Frankenstein" according to Milton and whatever truth you possess will be stigmatized and discredited - out goes the baby with the bathwater. Richard Dawkins and Nature Magazine cultural peers will be Jerry Falwell and the Old Time Gospel Hour.Atheist, neo-Darwinist, MIT whiz Daniel Harbour wrote a book " An Intelligent Persons Guide to Atheism " {available at any large chain bookstore, 2001} This book in my view contains the cutting edge arguments for atheism.Harbour argues the method used by science to arrive at truth, {ratonal enquiry} is superior to the method used by theists to arrive at truth. He renames rational enquiry "meritocracy" and the methods of theism "monarchy".Meritocracy assumes the least, bases its beliefs and conclusions on proven evidence, always flexible when new facts are introduced.Monarchy assumes the most and bases its beliefs and conclusons on the subjective views of the priest, rabbi, cleric etc. etc. And is infamously rigid and non-flexible.The only problem is: IF God is, and IF the Bible contains His word, then the subjective views of God become the objective truth, and God in His word has decided that His objective truth is to be explained by His chosen representative - the Preacher.This method of discovering truth is ordained by God and has only fallen into disrepute because of attention given to the bad ones.Dr.Gene Scott {Ph.D. Stanford University} teaches that God gives US the choice in deciding which Preacher speaks for Him, with the criteria being "do they turn lights on ? ......do you hear the Other voice through them ?" This is the method God has chosen to speak.Dr.Scott teaches that if a person refuses to acknowledge and credit God as Creator and to be thankful {2 things}{Romans 1:18-25} then this makes them eligible to recieve the wrath of God, which said wrath manifests itself by incapacitating one's ability to know, understand, or recognize God. Dr.Scott calls this the "removal of insight - God sense"Daniel Harbour indicts the method of monachy to be irrational and thus inferior to the superiority of meritocracy.The emergence of Darwinism ushered in a bold throng of brilliant scientists who with their descendants today all have one common denominator: They exhibit the traits of persons suffering the wrath of God. This then makes an inverted mockery of the claim of rational enquiry. How can God senseless persons arrive at truth sensibly ? They are incapable from God's perspective which perfectly explains their constant inability to deduce from what is made that a Creator made it. {Romans 1:20}Instead this God forsaken state finds them "worshipping the creature {birds, quadrepeds, fossils, bones} and not the Creator" {Romans 1:23,25}Bluntly said, chance mutation and natural selection are the creations of brilliant minds darkened by God.A mind enlightened by God satisfies the requirement of 2 things {acknowledgement of Creator/thankfulness} by saying the process of mutation is not controlled by a dunce called chance but is directed or programmed by the brilliance of God. {I concede the definition of mutation even though by traditional terms it is not associated with improvement}Contained in the few assumptions of meritocracy is the previously made decision to exclude God as a possibilty. This assumption and decision is explained by the theology of the New Testament.
We have brilliant scientists making brilliant discoveries who use their brilliance as a qualification to arbitrarily deny ultimate credit to God.By no means am I saying that the misuse of rational enquiry to dismiss God negates its legitimacy to discover scientific truth.I conclude that neo-Darwinism collective failure to credit God to be pre-meditated, which triggers God's response of punishment, which in turn logically renders every claim of certainty defective and suspect.Once again, the Richard Milton quotes that began this post become independant corroboration of the starting assumptions contained in monarchy which is SOME evidence against evolution which is the claim of this topic.

Certain things must be assumed or meaningful debate cannot take place.If you are saying that the quote is deliberately misqouted by Milton then I say go ahead and prove it. I guess you would have to go this route because the alternative is very credible evidence against evolution.

ok i havnt been here for all the replies but i read the first page and saw the list of fossiles so here is a website that has all those listed fossiles and a description of it. http://www.webspawner.com/users/frankparkhome/

Are you saying that the context of the quote has Leakey talking about the disputes of how evolution takes place as opposed to the intent of Milton to prove the true status of the evidence to be virtually non existent for evolution.If you are correct then Leakey and others are citing a small amount of evidence to prove the theory a fact and all other debate from this point on is centered on how this happens.Also, my post didn't use the word "bunk" as yours did so could you re-explain your point here.It seems irrational that the origin of species/life is accepted with so little amount of hard evidence. This admission appears to contradict earlier posts of yours that say the opposite.Maybe Leakey is just being honest, that evolution remains a theory until more hard evidence is unearthed, but in the meantime he will continue to conduct research as if it is , and there is nothing wrong with that.The main problem I have with arguing that it is invalid to quote evolutuionits as evidence offered against evolution is because it dodges the question . I completely understand your concern for the proper context to be established. Are you saying all evolutionists now believe the theory to be fact ? A fact based upon what you just admitted in the post that the quantity of volume of fossils world wide could fit in a bread box ? {an American term}In a much earlier reply you posted color photos of fossils and bones. Then you said for me to figure out which ones are human or apes or transitional. Of course I cannot and you know this . Why don't you do it for me. Were you being sarcastic or rhetorical or what ?Then why don't you also tell me why the forgeries of Pilt Down Man and Java Man were allowed to remain for so long ? I fully realize that you are not responsible for this, but Milton rightfully contends that these forgeries and the artistic license that gave them the transitional appearance was deliberately ignored by the scientific establishment for much too long of a time.Milton disappointingly proclaims that the glass case at Kensington is still empty. If not true then do you have any arguments as to why this man would lie so badly ? Your previous posts against Milton just don't hit the nail on the head.As I have said before I am truly impressed with your command of evolution. You know what you believe and why you believe it - I can respect that. I just disagree with your interpretations and conclusions. I also am not afraid to admit that your use of logidemic language renders me unable to understand some of your scientific explanations. This is also a complaint of we creationists - no one can understand the nuts and bolts of the science unless it can be communicated in plain practidemic terms.

Post #110 by a Darwinist admits that there isn't a lot of fossils.Other posts by Darwinists indicate that there is a paucity of the bones in question. Still others agree with you.I don't know what to say concerning this post. It is extremely informative. You already know where I stand on Richard Milton.I like to debate not whether the evidence is genuine, but its interpretation, and the obvious failure {in my view } of evolutionists to possess an ounce of humility and cede some credit to God.

Concerning your insulting comment about my knowledge of science:The reply that you responded to was my reply to another persons reply.In that other persons reply they plainly explained that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor.The wording used implied that this person also wanted me to ask the question, "What is that common ancestor ?" So seeing this I did.I think I know what the answer is but I didn't want to assume the posters answer. {there are only so many answers to this question}Then you enter in with a reply.All because I asked "What is that common ancestor ?" This simple respectful question directed at another member becomes a springboard for you to conclude that I know nothing about science.In context this is a very unintelligent deduction.Your quickness to fit me with a dunce cap is completely wthout merit based upon the context of the exchange I just referenced.You also inaccurately deduce that the only people who can deduce the Creator from what is made came to believe from some other means.
Deism is the term that classifies persosns who believe God created the universe but He does not intrude into the things of time nor can He be known.

Anti-Darwinists have a poor track record of quoting, sometimes deliberately, sometimes through laziness. You've already been linked to examples of such by Darwinsterrier. My knowledge of Leaky and of evidence regarding human/ape ancestry is entirely inconsistent with that quote IF the point of the quote is to call into question whether humans and apes share a common ancestor. I sincerely doubt that was the original point.While the specifics of the evolutionary tree is open to much debate, the rough outline is not - and the evidence of common ancestry of humans and apes (and not just through fossils, by the way) is plenty solid enough to fall into the "fact" category.Another reason to doubt that that was the point is the quote is taken from a book by a leading evolutionary researcher on human origins - do you sincerely think Leaky believes that human/ape relatedness is in doubt?So, do you want to take me up on my bet, or not?

This post is utterly solid.I learned what you believe and why you believe it. Your evidence and the way you explain it left me enlightened.Lets back up though. Will you expand on exactly why the paleontologists forsook their creationist beliefs ? {be careful this is my area of 'expertise'}How does their brilliant discoveries translate into God not existing ?You kind of concluded at the end that the lack of sense in the progression of discoveries should evidence the lack of a Creator.Please also read post #112

The paragraph that ended with "need I continue " No you do not.This is a great answer, and on a strictly science level I have to remain silent because it makes sense to me. Though I will check you out.But if true, then this surely doesn't mean that because we have no access to this stratum of the Earth's crust that we should assume its contents ?