Posted on 05/29/2009 9:26:48 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
May 27, 2009 — How’s the story of human evolution hanging together these days? There’s no better place to look than the Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences. In the yearly issue released this month, Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey Schwartz gave a pretty thorough overview of the “Evolution of the Genus Homo.”[1] Their account is fraught with controversy, confusion and convoluted ideas from the very first sentence...
(Excerpt) Read more at creationsafaris.com ...
Ping!
Thanks for the ping!
Posting crap again???
“Controversies have flared up ever since with each new fossil, debating whether it belongs inside or outside of Homo (whatever is meant by that flexible category).”
— WHY is there constantly such controversies? Because there are no clean breaks to make the job easy for taxonomists - precisely what we’d expect if evolution occurred. If such controversies didn’t exist in the field of taxonomy, that would mark a problem for evolution!
It’s an article mocking problems in taxonomy which are precisely the problems that taxonomists ought to have if Darwinism occurs.
Evolutionary science seems to just be one big joke now. They keep studying fossils they know very little about and growing bacteria that change, and then create the craziest made up crap in the world with their findings. The saddest part of all is they get Ph.D.’s for doing it and teach this bozo science in our schools.
That cloud of dust on the horizon is the “Insult Gang”.
They can type faster than I can!
Talking to yourself again?
tweaks you to be reminded that evolution is just a fairy tale, eh?
Creationists who attack evolution are just weak minded people who are out for a fight.
I don’t know if God created everything in seven days, but if he did, he created it to look as though it happened over billions of years. Smart Guy, preserving faith by leaving an alternative. If there were just one possibility, how could you exercise your faith?
I am constantly among very religious people who have no problem with evolution and geology weakening their faith. They believe the bible with faith, and they use the theories of evolution, geology, and other sciences to organize their knowledge from the natural world. No hateful confrontation necessary.
But if you whackos want to be classified with hawkers of male enhancing devices and kitchen gadgets as a waste of everyone’s time, then knock yourselves out attacking the natural sciences — they can easily take the abuse.
Well seeing how you admit to being ignorant about whether God created in seven days or billions of years, it would appear that your are the weak minded person you are talking about.
PS God did not create in seven days. He created the Universe and everything in it in six days. Read your Bible!
Then what is science?
If you’re just taking the bible at face value, what use do you even have for it???
Say what you want about them but a least evolutionists TRY to look to the natural world for answers.
The taxonomic problems experienced have nothing to do with believing in evolution. Taxonomy isn’t just an evolutionist pursuit.
If they were Creationists, they’d have the same problem.
In fact, Creationists DO have the same problem.
It’s fun reading various Creationist websites talking about a fossil, with some saying the fossil is “obviously fully ape” and others arguing that the fossil is “obviously fully human”, and it’s the same fossil. :-)
“In fact, Creationists DO have the same problem.”
I don't now what's on various creationist websites as I don't read them unless they are part of a posting here so you'll have to tell which sites you have in mind. I guess it's human nature to classify everything in the world and trying to put an item into a certain class based upon a characteristic of an item in another class is always iffy.
Bowling balls and automobile wheels share certain characteristics and can be put into the class of “things with rounded surfaces, subclass, things that roll” but that in no way makes them related except in the view of the classifier. But I might show how one “evolved” into the other by numerous small steps and mutations where small steps weren't enough.
The problem of shared characteristics is THE problem.
Do they indicate a relationship or simply the same approach to similar requirements?
“The taxonomic problems experienced have nothing to do with believing in evolution. Taxonomy isn't’t just an evolutionist pursuit.”
One set of problems is unique to Darwinism, showing a shared characteristic demonstrates lineage or common ancestry.
Taxonomy is about more than just similarities. If lifeforms were merely similar to each other, there wouldn’t be a taxonomic tree, it’d be a taxonomic mesh or web.
So while (IMO) the study of taxonomy clearly shows evolution (the reason why life fits naturally into a branching topology is because evolution likewise occurs by branching) - it’s also in some ways anti-evolution in it’s method.
Taxonomy actually doesn’t ALLOW for “intermediates”. Sure, you can organize extant species by having species A, and species B branch from A, and C branch from B, etc, but with the fossil record taxonomists run into some real problems. You find species “1” and a slight variant species “2”, but what if you find an intermediate? You can’t call it “1.5”, you either have to shoehorn it into “1” or “2” or create a new species category - even though if “1” didn’t exist it would probably be put into “2”, and if “2” didn’t exist it would probably be put into “1”. At this point it’s easy to see taxonomists arguing over whether there’s 1 species, or 3 species, or if there should be 2 species with species “1.5” being put into “1” or “2”. And if species “1.25” or “1.75” are found, there’s going to be some real fireworks. Some would use that as evidence that there should only be 1 species, while others will then argue for 5 species.
Notice in the above paragraph that I didn’t mention evolution or assume any lineage - regardless of whether the taxonomists above are evolutionists or Creationists is irrelevant - the problems exists either way. Assuming Creationism doesn’t somehow answer the question of how many species are involved or in which species to put particular fossils. Of course evolutionists would say that that’s precisely the kind of problems we SHOULD have if evolution were true (which would make any mocking from Creationists for having such problems quite bizarre) - but the problem doesn’t exist BECAUSE of the assumption of evolution.
To use a real world example (hominid fossils), some say we should have 2 Homo species; Homo sapiens and Homo erectus. Others argue for having these categories:
Homo sapiens, Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Homo georgicus, Homo heidelbergensis, Homo antecessor, Homo rudolfensis, Homo habilus
And many times when fossils are found, it’s disputed as to which species it fits best in - even among those that agree as to how many species there are.
And these disputes aren’t somehow caused by any evolutionist assumptions - assume Creationism and the same problems exist.
There is one issue that evolutionists have that the Creationists don’t - working out an evolutionary tree (eg - assuming that rudolfensis and habilus are different species, which one produced Homo erectus?)
However, I don’t recall seeing such a dispute in the article (I may have missed it). The disputes I saw were like those in the examples above. How do we draw up lines of demarcation to divvy these fossils into separate species when it’s such a smooth series? How many lines should be drawn? Where ever we draw lines, certain fossils fall onto those lines - how do we deal with such fossils? These problems exist independently of any evolutionist assumptions.
Here’s a site that talks about some of the disputes seen among Creationists as to how to classify hominid fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/a_erectus.html
For an example from FR, I put together this post (although this one is about Ida. It’s post #12)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2259220/posts
Various? Back when Henry Morris was above room temperature, he and Duane Gish were of these opinions about Homo erectus pekinensis. Now if their shared workplace had been a real Institute of Research instead of a Creation one, there would have been papers and counter-papers published, more in sorrow than anger acknowledgment of that idiot's opinion, shouting in the corridors: you know, they would have behaved like scientists.
But they just didn't care. They were evangelists, and knew as long as they kept their views separated, the rubes wouldn't care either.
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.