Review of Godless -- (Centers on Evolution)

Powells Review a Day ^ | August 10, 2006 | Jerry Coyne

[DannyTN]

Talkorigins doesn't have a lot of credibility with me. Notice the third vestigial organ link that I posted, the one that was by itself, talking about how critical the appendix was in young people. That information came from pro-evolution magazine.

So how is it, that TalkOrigins is still trying to cast doubt on the appendix?

[DannyTN]

And I didn't ignore TalkOrigns rebuttal on zircon. If you noticed I posted TrueOrigins rebuttals to TalkOrigins rebuttal.

[Dante Alighieri]

They rebutted the rebuttal; check the dates.

[bobdsmith]

This was the link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v26/i3/vestigial.asp

This is what AnswersInGenesis quoted from New Scientist:

Your surgeon was a little out of date’, replied Chicagoan Kathleen James in the pro-evolution magazine’s questions-and-answers column. ‘Although it used to be believed that the appendix had no function and was an evolutionary relic, this is no longer thought to be true. Its greatest importance is the immunological function it provides in the developing embryo, but it continues to function even in the adult ... . The function of the appendix appears to be to expose circulating immune cells to antigens from the bacteria and other organisms living in your gut. That helps your immune system to tell friend from foe and stops it from launching damaging attacks on bacteria that happily co-exist with you.’1

Here is the same quote from the New Scientist Q&A article:

http://www.newscientist.com/backpage.ns?id=lw968

Your surgeon was a little out of date. Although it used to be believed that the appendix had no function and was an evolutionary relic, this is no longer thought to be true. Its greatest importance is the immunological function it provides in the developing embryo, but it continues to function even in the adult, although it's not so important and we can live without it. The function of the appendix appears to be to expose circulating immune cells to antigens from the bacteria and other organisms living in your gut. That helps your immune system to tell friend from foe and stops it from launching damaging attacks on bacteria that happily co-exist with you.

Note the part in bold that AIG replaced with ...

hmmm

[BlueSky194]

If Darwin is wrong.
Then who created God.
See nobody can answer that question.

[RunningWolf]

bray

Those 'hominid skulls' are nothing but composites of who knows how many skeletal remains of uncertain origin and have no reality in truth. By that 'evidence', the existence of the 'hominids' is only in the minds of those who view the world through that myopic filter.

That some men have gained academic credentials and made names for their visions (and themselves) and ultimately means nothing other than that.

W.

[bray]

Actually if the eye does not evolve it total it is a useless organ. There is no evidence that it evolved slowly and the fact is scientist really do not understand how the eye can work as fast as it does or how light is transfered to the brain.

Ironic that Darwin is going the way of the Dinosaur.

Pray for W and Our Freedom Fighters

[Thatcherite]

Actually if the eye does not evolve it total it is a useless organ.

Completely false. In the land of the blind, the creature with an eye that is .01% as good as the modern vertebrate eye has a killing advantage (literally). We see pretty much every stage between a basic directional photoreceptor and (eg) the Eagle's eye in numerous species that are alive today. Eyes that go from the bare minimum of photoreception to eyesight that is considerably better than humans possess. Furthermore certain engineering inefficacies in the design of the vertebrate eye betray its evolutionary origins.

[Dimensio]

Actually if the eye does not evolve it total it is a useless organ.

Why?

There is no evidence that it evolved slowly and the fact is scientist really do not understand how the eye can work as fast as it does or how light is transfered to the brain.

Both of these statements are false. That you do not understand how the eye works is not evidence that no one does. In fact, the workings of the eye are explained in introductory psychology courses. The means by which the eye sends signals to the brain is not a mystery to biology.

Ironic that Darwin is going the way of the Dinosaur.

You have thus far offered no evidence to support this claim.

[VadeRetro]

Dinosaurs were evidently not “failed species.” Their extinction seemingly was not the result of genetic defect (see below), but of cosmic catastrophe. Yet Darwin, completely unaware of the modern science of genetics, still held that some species fail.

Never mind why I'm reading this so late. (Why am I reading it at all?) The dinosaurs were successful in a certain set of conditions, a very broad set. The non-avian ones failed the challenge presented when things changed dramatically. Thus, they were unsuccessful when they died out. Other life forms including mammals (which had been around for about the same length of time up to then) met that challenge better and basically inherited the Earth.

It's about genetics and it's about whether the environment--and thus the selection pressure--changes and how much and how soon and in what direction and how fast and whether any competing species adapts better.

[JHBowden]

Thanks for the article; it makes a lot of solid points. Unfortunately the author politicizes the subject and adds a lot of snarky comments, which only reinforces the insane, conspiratorial interpretation of science Ann is pushing.

The case for evolution by natural selection is easily made by the science alone. It is more boring to make a case like that, but most true beliefs are boring.

[Dante Alighieri]

It kind makes sense though. She did make insulting comments about him in her book and basically wrote off his entire life's work as worthless. If someone told me that I had been doing nothing for the past 30 or so years and then proceeded to insult me, I'd be pretty pissed myself. But, even then, that doesn't excuse his behavior. Two wrongs don't make a right. (But three rights make a left)

[betty boop]

Then who created God.... See nobody can answer that question.

Actually BlueSky194, I can answer that question, simply by stating that the question is senseless in principle. And the reason for that is God is not part of, not a captive of, the 4D spacetime process that we humans normally experience. We have that insight on the testimony of at least three or so millennia-worth of cross-cultural (even universal, I'd warrant) human intellectual and spiritual effort for which we have actual historical documentation.

Cause-and-effect issues depend on spatial and temporal extension. But God is not "captive" to space and time at all. Therefore, to ask about the "causation" (the creation, as you put it) of God is a meaningless question. Furthermore, simply to ask such a question indicates an enormous "category error" has been committed.

[hosepipe]

[ Then who created God.... ]

A serious question by BlueSky.. Chimps accept humans as real they just don't really care about them.. No chimp ever sought after "a" God.. But men have sought after "a" God from day one, whenever that was.. No culture in history, currently known, didn't invent a God.. They all did.. sometimes multiple ones..

Men invent Gods.. or have an appetite for "God(s)"... Mankind is unique among Primates in that... that is if man is a primate at all.. Like some that "hate" the God concept try to "sell" you/us...

Can "a" God be created?... Absolutely... Is God (the real one) created by man?.. It all comes down to the observer.. What do you observe?.. Amazing that God and mankind are observeing each other.. I observe God and see things, God observes me and sees things.. Who is more accurate?..

Really.. mankind.. should study the observations of "observers".. What is observing "well"?.. What is observeing "less well".. How accurate are my or you're observations, who is closer to the Truth?.. What are "we" observing "with"?.. What are the tools of "observation"?...

You know we could have an important discussion on this subject.. The observation of reality.. and are their stages to observing reality?.. You know, different realities..

[MHGinTN]

BB, if you read John chapter fourteen, you will see a 'physics lesson', taught to Philip by Jesus. To say God is not in time because He created time is to dismiss the physics lesson taught there.

[DannyTN]

"although it's not so important and we can live without it."

We can live without a lot of body parts, the human body is wonderfully redundant. But that doesn't mean it's optimal without it. And the appendix performs such critical services during our youth in developing our immune system, that if we were born without it, survival would probably be unlikely.

[DannyTN]

This is as scientifically valid as your skull Fauxtography. But I'll be back to rip apart your skull chart for the intellectual psuedoscience that it is.

Scientific Proof that Man evolved from Dogs

[af_vet_rr]

The case for evolution by natural selection is easily made by the science alone.

You are leaving out a very important fact - as others have said in other threads:

There is no theory of evolution. Just a list of animals Chuck Norris allows to live.

[Quark2005]

But I'll be back to rip apart your skull chart for the intellectual psuedoscience that it is.

I'm looking forward to seeing what it is that you can point out that thousands of archeologists and paleontologists dedicating their professional lives to this field have 'overlooked'.

[DannyTN]

If you want to embarrass yourself (by posting the skull chart) go ahead. - DannyTN

All right, here we go: - Quark2005

"No one ever claimed that this was lineal series of transitionals, but the relation and progression through time is clear." - Quark2005

DOUBLESPEAK Alert!!!

It's not a "lineal series of transitionals" but "the relation and progression through time is clear". HUH??? In other words, it's got FLUFF. When examined, there's not a single candidate for a transitional in the whole bunch!!

Evo's post that chart without any disclaimers every time someone says there are no ape to man transitionals. But as I will show this is FREUDENSCIENCE at it's best.

Let's remove the clutter, the normalization of size, and the skulls that were so badly damaged they could have been reconstructed into anything and see what's left....

And I do mean clutter.

• G-N are all human skulls and all within the range of modern human variability.
• (A) is a modern chimp, neither ancestral to humans or Australopithecus.
• B,C,D, & F are all Australopithecus apes, also not ancestral to humans.
• And E, like F, was in so bad of shape when found that it could have been reconstructed to be almost anything.

That's the best you could do? Please!!! If you aren't embarrassed already, then you are unshameable! But wait there's more....

To rely on them as a support for transitionals is more imagination than hard evidence. The fact that you have to rely on such pitiful specimens as I will show them to be, speaks volumes about how little evidence for ape to human transitionals there is.

Skull E

Habilis skull E, that was found crushed totally flat under a layer of limestone and underwent extensive reconstruction, massive warping of the individual parts is acknowledged. It's probably either an Australopithecus or a Boisei like the other skull that was found in the same location. A skull that damaged is a blank slate for an Evo's imagination to run wild with.

Smithsonian on Skull E.

(E) OH62 was initially assigned to Habilis because of the similarity of the palate to that of skull Stw53, However, Kuman and Clarke list several major morphological traits of Stw 53 that they believe warrant its inclusion in the genus Australopithecus, including teeth that are very large and a braincase that is frontally narrow and restricted. So if Stw53 is a Austalopithecus, then OH62 probably is too. However scans of the inner ear, seemed to indicate human. So I'll grant you that there is ambiguity about E, but the specimen is so damaged that it shouldn't be considered evidence of anything except evolutionist desperation.

Skull F 1470

D and F weren't initially recognized as Australopithicus. F is skull ER-1470, which was reconstructed out of 100 pieces. In true evo bias fashion, it was first reconstructed to have a flat human like face, making it a "transitional", every evo's heart's desire.> But once the Creationist, Christopher Hummer, was finally allowed to examine it and started pointing out similarities to Austraopithecus skulls, it was reconstructed again and determined to be nothing but a large brained Australopithecus.

The Rise and Fall of skull 1470

Skull D

Inner ear scans of D (Skull 1813) and F indicate that both were knuckle walkers like Australopithicus. That puts them squarely back into the camp of Australopithicus and out of the Habilis category.

Human Skulls G-N

Why so many human skulls? It's called FLUFFING. Put enough human skulls in the chart, and maybe people will think you have a transition going on. You could find as much variability in Human skulls using 21th century skulls as you have demonstrated here. Nevertheless, let's take a closer look.

Skull G - Erectus

There are 17 defining traits for Erectus. All 17 can still be found in the human population. A group of over 200 living Australian Aborigines were found to share 14 of those 17 traits with Erectus. Except for the presumed age of Erectus skulls, there's really no reason to consider them to be different from Modern Humans. How different is the cranial-vault thickness of Homo erectus from modern man?

Skull I - Broken Hill #1 aka Rhodesia Man.

I especially like the inclusion of (I) the badly diseased Bunker Hill skull. Even the Smithsonian acknowledges the skull is diseased. Dr. Jack Cuozzo examined and x-rayed the skull and says the skull "cries out disease" and is thickened from severe acromegaly (excess secretion of growth hormone in adulthood).

What's more Dr. Cuozzo says the hole in the skull appears to be an 8mm gunshot wound complete with exit wound, which would make the skull a modern skull. (It was found at the bottom of a well.) Originally that skull was thought to be less than 40,000 years old, then it was promoted to 125,000 years old. And a French museum now promotes it as 400,000 years old. If Dr. Cuozzo is right, it's less than 100 years old. The British Museum hasn't conceded yet to Cuozzo's finding about the bullet hole. However, the diseased state of the skull is acknowledged by all. And Cuozzo points to evidence that the British Museum appears to have published pictures that hides the evidence of how badly diseased the skull is.

Whether or not there's a bullet hole, to include a badly diseased skull in a visual chart like this as representative of anything is FauxEvoImagery.
Dr. Cuozzo on the Broken Hill skull 1

Neanderthals - Skulls J-L

Why are there 3 Neanderthals, when they are considered human and not ancestral to modern human? They've lost their special status as their own species, along with the Evo fauximagery of hairy stooped over men. They had larger craniums than modern humans a fact that you can't tell because of the deceptive normalization in your skull chart.

There are 3 due to Fluffing. There are 3 Neanderthals, for the same reason that there are 8 human skulls. Because without Fluffing, your chart reduces to nothing, except the crushed remains of evolutionist dreams.

Is this really the best you can do? Two skulls (E&F) crushed beyond recognition painstakingly reconstructed and one skull (I) so diseased, it's inclusion in a visual chart like this is ludicrous.

Other Characteristics.

A review of other characteristics show that all fossils are either clearly in the ape category or clearly in the human category. Brain size is the only category that appears to approach intermediate between the Australopithecus ape and modern humans. Link for the article from which the following table is pulled follows:

Table 1: Summary of the results of analyses of characteristics of fossil Homo species [After Table 7 in Wood and Collard, Ref. 3]. 1) body size, 2) body shape, 3) locomotion, 4) jaws and teeth, 5) development and 6) brain size. H = like modern humans, A = australopith-like, I = intermediate ? = data unavailable.

Species name	1	2	3	4	5	6
H. rudolfensis	?	?	?	A	A	A
H. habilis	A	A	A	A	A	A
H. ergaster	H	H	H	H	H	A
H. erectus	H	?	H	H	?	I
H. heidelbergensis	H	?	H	H	?	A
H neanderthalensis	H	H	H	H	H	H

In order to fend off the usual bogus anti-creationist accusations of quoting out of context, Table 1 (above) has been reproduced from Table 7 in Wood and Collard exactly as it appears in their work. As can be seen, only one major constellation of traits in the specimens in question is in fact characterized as I (intermediate) between australopiths and Homo sapiens. All of the others are either unknown, clear-cut australopith in morphology, or clear-cut Homo sapiens in morphology. Now, had the hominins actually been a series of transitional forms gradually progressing from australopith to modern Homo sapiens (as commonly portrayed in textbooks), many if not most of the entries in Table 1 would instead be I (intermediate).

But it gets even worse for the evolutionist. Note that the individual hominins do not even qualify as a mosaic of australopith and Homo sapiens attributes. There is no increase in the number of human traits in the ‘series’. Most or all of the six constellations of traits dichotomize sharply along the lines of all-australopith or all Homo sapiens in terms of morphology.

The non-transitions in human evolution - on evolutionist' terms

Conclusion

That chart reduces to australopithicus ape fossils and human fossils with no evidence of intermediaries. Somewhere there is a quote of evolutionists admitting that australopithicus is more distinct from both humans and chimps than humans and chimps are from each other.

Without tricks like normalizing the skulls and fluffing, you would never dare post a chart like this. That you have, should embarrass you to no end.

This isn't representative of "transitionals". It is however, representative of the sloppy work of Dr. Theobold, who published this farce as part of his alleged 29 evidences, which are every bit as flimsy.

For Reference - FauxEvoImagery

(A) Pan troglodytes, chimpanzee, modern
(B) Australopithecus africanus, STS 5, 2.6 My
(C) Australopithecus africanus, STS 71, 2.5 My
(D) Homo habilis, KNM-ER 1813, 1.9 My
(E) Homo habilis, OH24, 1.8 My
(F) Homo rudolfensis, KNM-ER 1470, 1.8 My
(G) Homo erectus, Dmanisi cranium D2700, 1.75 My
(H) Homo ergaster (early H. erectus), KNM-ER 3733, 1.75 My
(I) Homo heidelbergensis, "Rhodesia man," 300,000 - 125,000 y
(J) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Ferrassie 1, 70,000 y
(K) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, La Chappelle-aux-Saints, 60,000 y
(L) Homo sapiens neanderthalensis, Le Moustier, 45,000 y
(M) Homo sapiens sapiens, Cro-Magnon I, 30,000 y
(N) Homo sapiens sapiens, modern