Historical depictions of human evolution have been based on the myth of Progress.
Article image and caption.
Posted on 02/22/2017 11:14:17 AM PST by fishtank
Fossils Destroy Human Evolution Story Again
Posted on February 16, 2017
The old picture of human evolution is in tatters again.
“Your face is probably more primitive than a Neanderthal’s.” That surprising headline on the BBC News summarizes the radical change in thinking of leading evolutionary paleoanthropologists about so-called ‘modern’ humans: i.e., those members of our genus Homo that have been unblessed by the self-serving species name sapiens (“the wise”). If you read Richard Gray’s article without the assumption of evolution, you may find yourself questioning the sapience of some moderns.
(Excerpt) Read more at crev.info ...
Historical depictions of human evolution have been based on the myth of Progress.
Article image and caption.
Supports the theory of De-evolution. Man isn't coming from the apes, he's going to them.
I know at least 5 ex girlfriends that would attest to that.
Ironically, ICANTSEETHAT.
Exactly.
Thank you for posting these great articles. Just ordered The Story of Reality as I went through the various links. Blessings!
and still the ocean iguana and the desert iguana, are strikingly still, iguanas.
Neanderthal models don't get nearly enough work.
how do rocks and planets evolve from themselves? did they evolve from nothing?
Modern evolutionary theory is not empirical science but rather a metaphysical project favored by humans who reject the Triune God as Father and prefer instead to imagine themselves the uncreated product of unseen energies working on matter. Darwin is not the father of the evolutionary project, that distinction belongs to ancient Sumerians whose cosmogony, Enuma Elish, declares the evolution of the gods from Apsu. Likewise, the Egyptian Sun god Ra describes his evolution from Nu
I thought they were moving to the idea of getting porked by space aliens not evolution these days.
Not sure the existence of two different kinds of iguanas that are still iguanas has much bearing on the questions commonly debated. My own notions of the state of science as a layman depends on the question:
Does adaptive evolution within a species go on: Of cource
Does adaptive evolution result in entirely new species with new features: I guess it might, not sure
Does all life on earth descend form a common ancestor: Maybe, but not sure.
Did the first life spring forth by some abiogentic process unaided: Does not seem plausible, don't know of any realistic hypothesis about this.
For the two middle questions I do not feel my opinion is very informed as biology is not an area of study I have dedicated myself much to.
Naturalists of course are going to agree with modern evolutionary theory, because they have to. But they also have much bigger problems with their philosophy which are intractable, so I consider it irrelevant.
Still if someone wishes to study evolution within a naturalistic framework, I won't argue with them. If they try to convince me that evolution means Naturalism is real, or even a rational plausible view, then I will be ready and willing to argue.
Here’s the original article for those who don’t want to read the junk that goes through a misinformation filter. The headline is misleading if you draw conclusions from it.
http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20170214-your-face-is-probably-more-primitive-than-a-neanderthals
.
You’re still in your dream world.
.
.
With evolution, there’s nothing to critique.
Its vaporware.
.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.