There is no proof that we evolved from apes. Period

the Sunday Telegraph ^ | 9/11/05 | Vij Sodera

[flevit]

Simon Schama appears to have little understanding of biology (Opinion, September 4). With an ostrich mindset that tries to ignore reality, pseudo-scientists continue in the vain hope that if they shout loud and long enough they can perpetuate the fairy story and bad science that is evolution.

You don't have to be a religious fundamentalist to question evolution theory - you just have to have an open and enquiring mind and not be afraid of challenging dogma. But you must be able to discern and dodge the effusion of evolutionary landmines that are bluster and non sequiturs.

No one denies the reality of variation and natural selection. For example, chihuahuas and Great Danes can be derived from a wolf by selective breeding. Therefore, a chihuahua is a wolf, in the same way that people of short stature and small brain capacity are fully human beings.

However, there is no evidence (fossil, anatomical, biochemical or genetic) that any creature did give rise, or could have given rise, to a different creature. In addition, by their absence in the fossil record for (supposed) millions of years along with the fact of their existence during the same time period, many animals such as the coelacanth demonstrate the principle that all creatures could have lived contemporaneously in the past.

No evidence supports the notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs, nor that whales evolved from terrestrial quadrupeds, nor that the human knee joint evolved from a fish pelvic fin. And the critically-positioned amino acids at the active sites within enzymes and structural proteins show that the origination of complex proteins by step-wise modifications of supposed ancestral peptides is impossible. In other words, birds have always been birds, whales have always been whales, apes did not evolve into humans, and humans have always been humans.

But you might protest that it has been proved that we evolved from apes. In fact, the answer is a categorical No. Australopithecines, for example, were simply extinct apes that in a few anatomical areas differed from living apes. If some of them walked bipedally to a greater degree than living apes, this does not constitute evidence that apes evolved into humans - it just means that some ancient apes were different from living apes.

[eleni121]

New species descending from another species...has not been shown or proven or demonstrated. Has not been perceived. Is not a theory not fact nor anything.

Just a hallucination and wishful thinking on the part of those who deny God's Hand..

[VadeRetro]

What, you couldn't work communism into it? Or is that only for when you're really in trouble?

[Ichneumon]

If you want reality, go to Walt Brown's Site and get on track

ROFL!!!

Look, son, Walt Brown's stuff is so goofy that even OTHER CREATIONISTS recognize it as garbage. Case in point:

The “Hydroplate Theory” of Dr. Walter Brown: A “Common Sense” Evaluation

Excerpt:

From a common-sense perspective alone, Dr. Brown’s hydroplate fantasy fails utterly. It is self-contradictory: requiring—for example—that rock simultaneously be stiff and rubbery. It describes movement by massive hydroplates which the conditions which supposedly created the plates would render impossible.

Dr. Brown fails to demonstrate the minimum professional competence which would qualify him to speculate upon the causes of observed features of the crust of the earth. He does not understand or does not accurately describe the phenomena which his theory purports to explain. He presents testimony in a way which makes the stories which the testimony is intended to support not credible to any neutral observer.

Hint: This will probably come as a shock to you, but "reality" is not synonymous with "whatever someone says that editor-surveyor wants to believe is true". There are standards on how to do actual reality-checks of one's beliefs against reality, but you have failed to apply any of them. The same goes for your ability to hand-wave away anything and everything as "toilet paper" which you wish not to believe, no matter how well-established it is and no matter how easy it is to verify it.

[Ichneumon]

This is a red herring. None of the mammals synthesizes ascorbic acid; they all get it from primarily vegetable sources.

I see. Then how do you account for the fact that endogenous Vitamin-C synthesis has actually been observed in non-primate mammals, and the biochemistry of this process is well understood?

Yet again, don't make the error of mistaking your presumptions for reality.

[Kids, this is your brain on creationism...
]

ances to you are twisted by your insistance in clinging to the completely disproven religion of evolution (otherwise known as the "I-can-have-any-kind-of-sex-I-want-to" faith.

Oooookay...

[bobdsmith]

New species descending from another species...has not been shown or proven or demonstrated. Has not been perceived. Is not a theory not fact nor anything.

It's been seen many times, it isn't that amazing, and so I don't get why you think it isn't a "theory or fact nor anything".

Do you believe all 300,000 species of beetle were created seperately?

What about the 1,100 species of bat?

[MRMEAN]

Does anyone have any solid examples where one new species has resulted from a parent species, preferably not in the misty, distant past?

The evolution of the "Nylon Bug," a Flavobacterium is very recent.

[eleni121]

Do you believe all 300,000 species of beetle were created seperately?

---

Yes and why not...the evos have not one iota of evidence to prove species changing and diverging.

Why would anybody believe in spontaneous generation like evos do?

[MRMEAN]

God created evolution... To any Darwinist "purists:" please prove me wrong.

I don't know of any evolutionary scientist who would attempt to prove you wrong; Science including evolutionary science cannot even conceptually prove that God had no role in the world, including the setting up of evolution, since Science studies the natural world, and God is by definition supernatural. In fact many scientists agree with you.

[Phsstpok]

You encapsulate my entire argument with the whole "evolution vs intelligent design" debate. Those who insist that God must not have had any role in evolution (which is the central argument against ID) are confusing mechanics (evolution) with causation (a creator versus random chance).

Random chance is not sufficient to explain random chance. The pot cannot hold itself. That an evolutionary mechanism has been involved in the progress of life on Earth is logically defensible based on the available evidence. Whether there was an intelligence behind that process or not is not even touched on in the slightest. Those who insist otherwise are making an argument based on their faith, whatever it may be. Therefore the issue of a creator should either be completely left out, either pro or con, or both the thought that there is none and the thought that one must be there must be given equal weight in any presentation.

The problem is that the committed Darwinists who so despise ID are trying to insist that evolution "proves" that there is no God. That is not only ridiculous it is patently false.

[bobdsmith]

Yes and why not...

Seeing as many beetle species are so similar, what do you think is the barrier preventing one species of beetle from adapting into a similar species? Seems that microevolution would do it.

the evos have not one iota of evidence to prove species changing and diverging.

Well there is the fossil record and shared genetic features. There are also observed new species. eg: http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/5103/species/mosquito.html

[Virginia-American]

This is a red herring. None of the mammals synthesizes ascorbic acid; they all get it from primarily vegetable sources

Breathtaking

Check this.

I am curious where you got this misinformation.

[MRMEAN]

The problem is that the committed Darwinists who so despise ID are trying to insist that evolution "proves" that there is no God.

I don't recall anyone here at FR attempting to show that evolution proves there is no God; I've seen the defenders of the idea of Darwinian evolution, whether they label themselves believers, atheists, and those that I have not seen declare their faith, say that the fact of evolution, and the TOE itself, can tell us nothing about the existence of God. You may, in fact be in agreement with Darwin himself (at least at some level):

Darwin was not an atheist, but a deist; that is he believed that some creating intelligence had designed the universe and set up natural laws according to which all of nature was unwaveringly governed.

[wardaddy]

No proof?

[Phsstpok]

I don't recall anyone here at FR attempting to show that evolution proves there is no God

Nor did I. But there are clearly people who feel that way in the world and many of them are prominently involved in the debate in the "real world" over this issue. It is they I was speaking of.

As to my personal beliefs, I've always felt that the proposed progression of classic evolution matches quite well with the sequence of creation in Genesis.

[editor-surveyor]

"I am curious where you got this misinformation.

It's not misinformation. I got it from our veterinarian, and from a practical, real world framework, it is true.

Had a cat that got a severe reaction to a rabies vaccination, which resulted in siezures which necessitated making the cat an 'inside' cat. after a few months the cat started having problems like oral, rectal, and ear bleeding. The vet traced the problem to a near total absence of ascorbic acid. I said that I had read that cats could make their own. She laughed, and said that the miniscule amounts that a small percentage of animals may make is negligible. She prescribed grass cubes that were available at pet supply shops. The grass cubes worked within about two weeks.

[Aliska]

The evolution of the "Nylon Bug," a Flavobacterium is very recent.

Is this for real? Google has some more on it. Who sequenced that? Luckily I do understand binary code but not much else so this is going to require some deep digging. Thank you for the info. I will put a checkmark in the evo column with a question mark. It's just a little bitty bug. I will have to seek independent sources to see if it reproduces sexually, probably so.

Very curious indeed.

[bvw]

Science, at least decent basic "science", would at least have some presentation of the number of artifacts, their distributions -- charts and graphs of measurable characteristics of those artifacts indicating the distribution of values, contrasting modern human distributions with the claimant sets.

What is the variance in jaw curvature among modern humans? Amoungst chimps and apes? What is the variance in those claimed artifacts of proto-human jaws?

The site you linked to, as best I can tell, does NOT give numbers, numbers of artifacts, numbers measured of jaw widths, curvatures etc. Almost no numbers at all. Where is Lord Kelvin when you need him? Wasn't it Lord Kelvin who said "no science without numbers!"? That site you linked to, iirc, makes a claim of a novel human species or subspecies based on only one artifact -- one teeny toe bone! Wow! Such wonderful *science*!

[editor-surveyor]

" one teeny toe bone! Wow! Such wonderful *science*!"

Sounds like Nebraska man all over again.

[FYREDEUS]

Please don't write all of us 'laypeople' off...I know it can sometimes be frustrating discussing areas of one's expertize with folk who do no have the experiential or educational background to easily comprehend the complexities of one's field, but some of us DO appreciate efforts at broadening our understanding...thank you...

[flevit]

ever heard of a creationist called Antonio Snider? proposed contentental drifting in 1858-9

came up with this model http://pubs.usgs.gov/publications/graphics/avant.gif

based upon Genesis 1:9 and geologic features.