Common Creationist Arguments - Pseudoscience

http://www.stardestroyer.net/Creationism/Arguments/Pseudoscience.shtml ^

[JediGirl]

Common Creationist Arguments

Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience is a scientific-sounding argument which in fact has no scientific validity whatsoever. This type of argument is based on the fact that the average layperson knows so little about science that he or she is liable to judge a scientific argument solely on its style and presentation (eg- "does it sound scientific?", or "does it incorporate scientific-sounding terms?") for lack of any other method of judging its validity.

Suggested Tactics

This type of creationist argument is difficult for most people to defend against, unless they are fairly knowledgeable about science (that's why it's so popular with creationists- they may not know anything about science, but they're gambling that you don't either). In my case, I simply call upon my knowledge of certain basic scientific principles that I learned in university, but I can't instruct everyone to do this, since not everyone has a technical background.

Therefore, it's difficult for me to recommand tactics for laypeople to counteract this sort of argument, but we should keep in mind that creationist pseudoscience arguments are almost never generated out of the mind of the creationist himself. They all tend to come from the same widely distributed pool of creationist literature, which is one of the reasons that creationists all over the world tend to spout the same pseudoscience arguments. I can offer the following suggestions:

Remember that if your opponent has no direct knowledge of the science involved, and is merely claiming truth because "I read it somewhere", this constitutes a fallacious appeal to authority. Point this out to him. One should always be able to explain the logic and science behind one's argument rather than simply making vague reference to an anonymous source.

Since these arguments are actually second hand arguments, demand to see the original source for his claim. When you see the source, check the credentials of the author. If they aren't fraudulent, check up on the university where the author got his degree. Odds are that the degree is either honorary, or it comes from a cheap diploma mill (or worse yet, one of the many church-run schools set up expressly for the purpose of handing out degrees to creationists). If you don't have the resources to check up on universities, try looking up the Talk.Origins website at www.talkorigins.org, which maintains a list of discredited creationist "experts" and their bogus credentials.

Examples follow:

"Occam's Razor is a scientific principle which says that when faced with two theories, we should always choose the simplest theory. Evolution theory requires billions of years of chemical reactions, environmental effects, and genetic mutations. Creation theory simply says "God did it". Creation theory is obviously simpler, therefore Occam's Razor demands that we must select Creation theory on scientific grounds."

This is perhaps the single most moronic creationist idea I've ever heard (it's also been used to "prove" the existence of God, by arguing that the concept of God is much simpler than the study of science). It's a classic example of creationist pseudoscience. They learn the term "Occam's Razor" and they learn just enough about its definition to abuse it, but they make no effort whatsoever to learn its true meaning.

"Choose the simplest theory" is an oversimplification of the concept of Occam's Razor. The term is named after the 14th century philosopher and theologian William of Occam. It might strike some as strange that a scientific principle might have come from a theologian, but good scientists do not practice appeals to authority or ad hominem attacks. If an idea makes sense, it doesn't matter who it came from, and the universal acceptance of Occam's Razor is a perfect example of that philosophy.

In any case, he argued that we should never "multiply entities unnecessarily". In other words, cut out extraneous terms from an equation. He used that principle (which is really just an argument against redundancy) to show that it was impossible to deduce God's existence through reason alone, so one would have to take it purely on faith. The irony is that a theologian realized that there was no logical basis for God's existence more than 600 years ago but modern fundamentalists still can't figure it out, and actually use his name to "prove" the exact opposite of what he himself argued!

For those who cannot appreciate the simplicity of Occam's Razor in its original form, Isaac Newton restated it thusly: "We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances." In plain English, when faced with two scientific theories which make the same predictions, choose the simpler theory. Or, as Stephen Hawking put it: "Cut out all the features of the theory which cannot be observed." (taken from A Brief History of Time).

Like all scientific principles, Occam's Razor is accepted not because William of Occam said it, but because it makes sense. You don't need to appeal to authority or take its validity on faith. If you are faced with two competing theories between which you have no other method of deciding, is it not obvious that the theory containing extra or unverifiable terms must therefore contain redundancies? The fact that the simpler theory can accomplish the same descriptive and predictive feats while utilizing fewer terms and not relying on unverifiable or unobservable phenomena is evidence of superiority.

Consider the analogy of two mechanical devices for making widgets. Both perform exactly the same function. In repeated, exhaustive tests, both are shown to produce exactly the same quality of widget, at the same rate, with the same raw materials. Both produce the same amount of waste. Both consume the same amount of electrical power. They cost the same. In other words, their performance is identical in every measurable way. The only noticeable difference is that device #1 is much simpler than device #2. It contains fewer components and mechanisms, and its operating principle is therefore simpler. Which one would you choose?

Suppose the salesman for device #2 is quite upset that you are leaning toward device #1, and he promises to do better. The next day, he returns with a new device (we'll call it device #3) which is completely sealed in black plastic (the classic "black box"). He says it's the latest, most advanced widget-making machine in the world. You feed it electricity and raw materials, and it spits out widgets. Its performance is no different from device #1 and device #2, but it is not user servicable. You can't see inside to figure out how it works, and the salesman refuses to let you see diagrams or schematics, ostensibly because the operation of the machine is beyond both your intellectual capacity and his. The salesman argues that device #3 is actually simpler than both device #1 and #2 because it has just one component: the black box. Does this make sense to you? Again, which device would you choose?

Occam's Razor is merely a name given to a logical and intuitively obvious thought process of eliminating redundancies. It cannot be used to choose between competing theories whose predictions are vastly different, any more than the simplicity of a drill press can be used to prove that it's superior to a fighter plane. Now that we are equipped with an understanding of the reasoning behind Occam's Razor, we can list some of the reasons that it cannot be used to support either creationism or the existence of God:

1. Occam's Razor is a method of choosing between competing scientific theories. It is irrelevant when comparing a scientific theory to the concept of God or creationism because God and creationism are not scientific theories. There are no objective terms in the concept of God. No equations. No mechanisms. No limits. No methods through which it can be used to predict the outcome of natural processes. No methods through which it can be tested, or disproven. The concept of God is actually the antithesis of a scientific theory, in that one resorts to the divine only when one's reason has either failed or been voluntarily suppressed. In the analogy above, Occam's Razor was used to evaluate a pair of machines. It couldn't be used to evaluate a machine versus, say, a piece of music.

2. "God" is actually not a "simpler theory" than science. "God" is merely a three-letter name which is affixed to a deity whose machinations are supposedly so complex that they are beyond mortal comprehension! If God's methods are inscrutable and incomprehensible to humans (as claimed in the Bible and by all Christians), then what business does anyone have claiming that they are "simpler" than a theory which humans can understand? In the analogy above, the concept of God is very much like the "black box". The salesman may argue that it's simpler because it's a nice smooth black box instead of a set of gears and motors, but that's a childish superficiality at best, and a bald-faced lie at worst.

3. Occam's Razor is not invoked unless the competing theories make identical predictions. It is a method of eliminating redundancies, as William of Occam first reasoned, and it only applies when the performance of the competing theories is identical. When two theories make vastly different predictions (as is the case with science and Biblical literalism), then Occam's Razor is completely irrelevant. In the analogy above, Occam's Razor was used to evaluate a pair of machines whose performance was identical. If the two machines made widgets of vastly different characteristics, Occam's Razor would be irrelevant.

The use of Occam's Razor to "prove" the existence of God or the validity of Biblical literalism is a classic example of creationist pseudoscience, because it is so emblematic of their method: take a real principle and grossly misinterpret it to mean the exact opposite of what it truly means.

"The second law of thermodynamics makes evolution impossible. It states that complexity cannot be spontaneously created, so it is impossible for natural processes to create a complex organism from a simple organism!"

This is one of the oldest, and most popular creationist pseudoscience arguments. It's been kicking around for more than a century, thanks to general public ignorance of thermodynamics. In fact, it's wrong on so many levels that it's hard to know where to start! Perhaps we should start at the beginning, with the definition of the second law of thermodynamics. According to my engineering thermodynamics textbook, the second law of thermodynamics has two basic postulates:

1. All physical processes create entropy (microscopic disorder).

2. The entropy of a closed system cannot decrease, ie- entropy can be created but not destroyed.

That's a lot different from "complexity cannot be spontaneously created", isn't it? Big surprise- creationists don't know anything about thermodynamics. Now that we've established their bizarre misconception about the second law of thermodynamics, we should try to understand what strange mental contortions were necessary to go from "the entropy of a closed system cannot decrease" to "complexity cannot be spontaneously created."

Upon further questioning, creationists invariably reveal the following beliefs about the second law:

1. "The entropy of a living organism can't decrease."

2. "The creation of complexity requires the destruction of entropy."

3. "The second law of thermodynamics applies to spontaneous events, but not to the deliberate acts of man (or deity). That's why humans can build a complex structure but natural processes can't."

These three beliefs are all completely wrong, and they all indicate a frightening ignorance of scientific principles. Let us examine each belief separately:

1. Actually, the entropy of a living organism can decrease, because a living organism is not a closed system. Since it is an open system, entropy can leave and enter. Entropy doesn't have to be destroyed- just moved. The concept of the closed system vs the open system is one of the most basic concepts that we teach kids in high school, and if someone thinks a living organism is a closed system, he must be staggeringly ignorant. Food, water, and energy enter and leave your body all the time, thus making it an open system. Furthermore, an entire species is even less of a closed system than an individual life form, and evolution occurs from one generation to the next, not in a single organism as it ages.

2. Complexity is not the destruction of disorder or the creation of order. In fact, there is more disorder in complex systems, as any student of chaos theory (or government bureacracies) can tell you. There is far more entropy in a nuclear power plant than there is in an ice cube, and a pretty snowflake has much more complexity than the drop of water from whence it came.

3. Physical laws apply all the time, to everybody, regardless of intent or intelligence. If the second law of thermodynamics truly prohibited the creation of complexity, then it wouldn't matter whether the complexity is created by "deliberate" acts or by random happenstance- it would be impossible in both cases. It is utterly unbelievable to me that creationist ignoramuses would interpret any physical law to only apply in the absence of deliberate intervention. No other physical laws of physics are interpreted to apply only in the absence of intelligent intervention- does gravity shut off when humans intervene?

This argument has been so thoroughly disproven, so many times in so many ways, that it's almost comical when people keep bringing it up. They might as well just tattoo their foreheads with the words "scientific ignoramus."

"By taking a random mixture of elements and analysing the probability of elements randomly forming into the correct combinations and orientations to make a simple amino acid, I can show that it is probabilistically impossible for the simplest amino acid to form, never mind the first living cell. Therefore, a Creator must have formed the first organisms, if not all of them."

This argument is invalid for the following reasons:

1. Spontaneous formation of amino and fatty acids has been observed in the laboratory, by subjecting an atmosphere of hydrogen, water vapour, ammonia and methane to electrical discharges and ultraviolet radiation. This simulates primeval Earth environmental conditions, therefore it is an observed fact, and not subject to debate.

2. Chemical reactions are not random! Elements only bond in certain combinations. Light a match in a cloud of hydrogen and oxygen, and countless trillions upon trillions of hydrogen and oxygen atoms will react to form H2O. Not H8O, and not H5O, but H2O. Purely random combinatorics are a completely invalid way of modelling chemical reactions.

3. The first living cell did not have to form from raw materials. It would have formed from more primitive components such as RNA, which was proposed many years ago as the first self-replicating molecule. It was even experimentally found to have catalytic capabilities for adding new nucleotides to the end of the chain or removing them, leading to the term "RNA World" to describe the origins of life. But even if RNA is not the candidate we're looking for, there is certainly no need to assume that the first organic self-replicators would have been full-blown single-celled organisms. The early self-replicators (such as RNA, if it was indeed the first self-replicator) would not have left fossils.

4. This entire attack is a red herring, because evolution theory and abiogenesis (the formation of organic self-replicators from simpler organic materials) are two completely different theories. Lumping them together is just as fallacious as lumping evolution theory with Big Bang theory. The process of evolution is heritable change in populations over multiple generations. Because the process of evolution requires multiple generations to occur, it cannot possibly happen before the first living organism! It doesn't kick in until after the first living organism already exists! Even if abiogenesis could be disproved, evolution theory would still be valid.

I should also note that this argument is generally coupled with the fallacious reasoning that "anything we don't understand is proof of divine intervention." Poorly understood phenomena are not invalidations of science- they are opportunities for scientific investigation. If we treat every gap in our understanding as proof of divine intervention, we would be no better than the tribal primitives who attributed divine intervention to everything from solar eclipses to rain. Visit the Probability page if you want to know more.

"Some older species fossils can be found on top of newer fossils. This inconsistency in your so-called 'progressionism' proves that creation theory is correct, since it means that all species were created at the same time."

More bad science, since this only occurs with animal remains that are on the surface. What happens is that severe erosion or a geological upheaval can occasionally expose strata bearing fossils, and of course, when Skippy the Dog runs away and dies near these old fossils, the "Young Earth Creationist" crowd immediately interprets this as disproof of the entire fossil record, the entire field of geology, the age of the Earth, etc.

As usual, their argument is based on ignorance of proper scientific method. This evidence would be disproof of the fossil record if it was impossible to rationalize its existence with that record. However, that is simply not the case. Geologists can examine patterns in the rock to determine whether a region is old or new, cross-cut, the result of upheaval, etc. It is the creationists who will look at a region, assume its age without using proper methodology, and then use fossil findings in that region to "disprove" geology and evolution theory.

"Evolution can explain changes in a species, but where does a whole new species come from? Speciation is the downfall of Evolution Theory!"

This is another case of creationists projecting their own pseudoscientific attitudes onto evolution theory. In this case, they are predisposed to believe that the creation of a species is a sudden, dramatic event at some fixed moment in time. One moment there's species A, and then the next moment there's species B. Much as God created Man from dust, and Eve from Adam's rib, they imagine that "evolutionists" describe evolution creating a man directly from an ape. But evolution theory does not work that way.

Speciation is not a sudden, miraculous transformation from one species to another. The way creationists envision evolution theory, a pregnant female ape went into labour one day and a human being popped out! It is a gross understatement to say that this is a misrepresentation of the truth. In reality, evolution theory merely proposes that a great many small changes eventually caused an animal population to become intersterile with its ancestors.

Of course, this would mean that there should be fossil evidence of various intermediate stages between successful species, and there is. Naturally, creationists explain all of the evidence away by pointing the finger at their favourite whipping boy: the global conspiracy of evil scientists, who work tirelessly to cover up the truth and fabricate false evidence. These people watch "X-Files" too damned much.

"I know we've observed micro-evolution, but what about macro-evolution? There is no evidence for macro-evolution!"

The creationist invention of the terms "macroevolution" and "microevolution" is a good example of how they try to mutilate the terms of science to their own advantage. Biologists do not differentiate between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, any more than mathematicians differentiate between micro-addition and macro-addition.

Their argument that there is no evidence for "macroevolution" is ridiculous because "macroevolution" is simply the result of adding a lot of "microevolution" together, and "microevolution" is, by their own admission, completely supported by various forms of evidence.

The other problem for this argument is that there actually is evidence to directly support what they describe as "macroevolution", and it's called "the fossil record". It's evidence because it is consistent with prediction. Of course, that's not enough for the creationists- they demand direct observation of massive evolutionary change in living animals, even though they know that we would have to observe living animals for millions of years in order to obtain the evidence they seek. Can you see the problem with this demand? It's pretty obvious- they are deliberately asking for a form of evidence which is impossible to obtain (millions of years of direct observation), and ignoring a form of evidence (the fossil record) which is relatively easy to obtain.

The universe operates on tiny processes, affecting tiny particles, which add up in tremendous numbers to cause large changes. If someone is going to claim that a slow, steady process cannot create large-scale changes given sufficient time, he had better provide some evidence and reasoning, rather than simply stating it as a fact and demanding impossible forms of evidence to disprove it. Are we to assume that all gradual processes eventually hit "brick walls" and stop, for mysterious and unknown reasons?

Do we question tectonic plate theory on the basis that we've observed small-scale tectonic plate movement but not large-scale tectonic plate movement? Do we insist that no one should believe in tectonic plate theory until we've been able to observe it for millions of years, so we can see long-distance movements firsthand? Do we deny the possibility of large-scale rock erosion because we've only seen small scale rock erosion? Why would a gradual process like tectonic plate movement, rock erosion, or evolution suddenly stop after an arbitrary length of time? What would make it stop? Why make this ridiculous distinction between "micro-evolution" and "macro-evolution?" Where is the line drawn between the two? What causes the barrier? These are questions that the creationists don't attempt to ask or answer, because like O.J. Simpson's defense lawyers, they're not serious about uncovering the truth. They just want to create "reasonable doubt" in the minds of a gullible audience.

The "microevolution vs macroevolution" argument is an example of creationists projecting their own mentality onto evolution, and then attacking the resulting strawman, ironically, for the very aspects that come from creationism. Creationism describes separate and distinct species: "each according to its kind". Creationists therefore make the same assumption: species are separate, indivisible, and disconnected. When they project this mentality onto evolution, they run into an obvious problem: there is no way for the process of evolution to "jump" over the invisible "barrier" between species. The problem is that they are assuming that this barrier exists! The terms "microevolution" and "macroevolution" are not found in biology; they are creationist inventions. Gradual changes eventually add up, and can turn one species into two, or they can cause a species to change so much that it becomes a distinct species from its predecessors.

As a thought experiment, consider human beings. It is generally assumed that any male/female pair of healthy human beings can produce children. But biological reproduction is a complex process, and it requires great genetic commonality. We know that two modern human beings can produce children, but what about a modern woman and a man from ten thousand years ago? What about a modern woman and a man from fifty thousand years ago? Is there still enough genetic commonality? Species are not delineated by distinct, clear boundaries. Rather, they are defined by intersterility and overt physical characteristics, and there is no "barrier" between species for the process of evolution to hurdle.

[gore3000]

"1) The fossil record and geologic column. Call it "faunal succession." I've littered up this thread with figures related to this. 2) Observed instances of speciation. See BMCDA's ring-species posts on this thread just for two examples. 3) Molecular clock evidence (phylogenetic trees that parallel the preexisting morphological ones). 4) The ability of the evolutionary model to explain what we see and predict things we should not see. 5) The lack of any other model with even a pretense of real information content or usefulness as a framework.

Interesting that you should post the above as proofs of macro-evolution when I have thoroughly destroyed most of them already on this thread right in front of your eyes!

Let's take them one by one:

1) The fossil record and geologic column. Call it "faunal succession."
I gave you an example of a species which defies evolution - Euglena. Your lame answer was:
"But you don't refute the reptile-to-mammal transition with the euglena. It's a bit far down the tree of life to be relevant."

2) Observed instances of speciation.
As I pointed out two times (see post#1175)- and you did nothing to refute it (nor any other evolutionist here) speciation is not macro-evolution. I also showed you why the warbler example and the salamander example were not even speciation (science itself does not call them separate species), let alone examples of macro-evolution.

3) Molecular clock evidence (phylogenetic trees that parallel the preexisting morphological ones).
This one has not been discussed here, you are welcome to show the proof of it (if you have any). However as to morphological trees - which trees are those? Evolutionists keep making new trees all the time and redrawing them each time their trees are proven wrong by real science, so this is a totally phony argument.

4) The ability of the evolutionary model to explain what we see and predict things we should not see.
You mean like the mammary glands on dinosaurs that you finally after many posts had to admit there was no disproof of? Or perhaps you mean the platypus laying eggs or the bat having better sonar than the US navy? What evolutionary model predicted that?

5) The lack of any other model with even a pretense of real information content or usefulness as a framework.
As a framework to what? Atheistic materialism? Or as an explanation of how life began and how man arose? There certainly is a model for how life began, it is called Christianity. Now it may not be an atheistic or a materialistic model, but it is a model. Also, a false model is worse than no model at all. Ptolemaic astronomy, brachyocephalism, phlogiston, alchemy (note the similarity of it to evolution) and many discredited theories hindered scientific advancement far more than if there had been no such theories around.

[gore3000]

Why do you assume that the 99 percent similarity means man has grown 200 genes that chimps lack? Your model concedes--even as you yourself do not--that chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestry.

Because otherwise man and chimp would have 100% the same genes. And no, if you knew a little bit of biology you would not say that the gene where one part was different is counted in the above. All genes for similar functions in different species have differences between them. That is why the blood of different animals cannot be used for transfusions in each other. No the 200 genes (or 300 or 700 if the higher numbers said by some to be in the human genome) are totally different. That higher species have new genes should not surprise us. The simplest known bacteria has some 500 genes. Therefore a lot of new genes had to have been created from the time of the first life to now. Let me remind you again how long it would take to just make one gene in man using the most favorable assumptions towards evolution a 1 with 42 zeros behind it years.

[gore3000]

Who seriously believes that the common ancestor of chimps and humans five--not ten--million years ago wasn't an ape?

Typical evolutionist double talk. Darwin said man descended from apes. Evolutionists continued to say so for many decades (remember the monkey trial?). Science proved them wrong. Man did not descend from apes according to science. They have disproven that Darwinist statement. That man descended from a common ancestor is a totally different thing (and that has not been proven).

[VadeRetro]

I gave you an example of a species which defies evolution - Euglena.

No, you simply gave us the Euglena. Thank you for reminding me of what Time-Life books first gave me back in the 60s. What you forgot to do is dazzle us with spin on how this makes faunal succession and/or the tree of life go away.

As I pointed out two times (see post#1175)- and you did nothing to refute it (nor any other evolutionist here) speciation is not macro-evolution. I also showed you why the warbler example and the salamander example were not even speciation (science itself does not call them separate species), let alone examples of macro-evolution.

You only pointed out that you have your own definition of macroevolution, which you have ignored requests to clarify. This refutes nothing.

This one has not been discussed here, you are welcome to show the proof of it (if you have any).

You know how, every time anyone posts the 29 evidences link you mention that you've been there and done that? Well, the line of evidence that's a new one on you today has been in there all along. How did that happen?

You mean like the mammary glands on dinosaurs that you finally after many posts had to admit there was no disproof of?

Do you give up or not? If you do, I'll tell you what the line of reasoning is, although I can't believe anyone who's really been following this thread or arguing with me about this stuff for over a year can't see it already.

As a framework to what? Atheistic materialism? Or as an explanation of how life began and how man arose? There certainly is a model for how life began, it is called Christianity.

What does the Christianity model tell you about whether or not dinosaurs had teats?

[gore3000]

Since Darwin's day we've found the homin[i]d series, the bird series, the whale series, I don't myself know how many series. Most of the stuff in the vertebrate transitional fossil list is post-Darwin. Most of everything we know in biology is post-Darwin and it's made him look like a prophet.

No we have not. Let's start with homo sapiens. The closest (and only known) possible ancestor to man known - Neanderthal - has been proven not to be the progenitor of man. What bird series? This we need to see, it has never been discussed here. As to whales - really? We have the missing link between whales and hippos? That's one series I would really like to see! BTW what about baleen whales?

[VadeRetro]

Science proved them wrong. Man did not descend from apes according to science.

What would the common ancestor of the chimpanzee and Australopithecus have looked like? Where does science say, "No apes?" Please cite your sources here.

[gore3000]

Don't think it was I who asked the question about brain size to you, however, we would all be interested in seeing the post. Kindly try to summarize or quote a paragraph about it proving your point to make it easier for those reading this thread.

[VadeRetro]

The closest (and only known) possible ancestor to man known - Neanderthal - has been proven not to be the progenitor of man.

Do you have anything new here? I've mopped up the floor with you on two threads with your intentionally fraudulent data filtration. It is not necessary to postulate Neanderthals as ancestral to man and I have not claimed otherwise to you. You know better, but pretend not to. This strikes me as very dishonet.

You read articles and replies, picking only the one sentence to quote which you believe helps you. You pretend to misunderstand. You pretend to not remember.

You pretend to not see.

All this hurts your point.

[VadeRetro]

All genes for similar functions in different species have differences between them.

It is the actual coding of genes for similar proteins, and more traditionally the proteins themselves, that are mostly compared across species. You can't just count the genes. Of course, you can also learn a lot comparing the location and content of viral DNA introns. That's another line of evidence that humans and chimps are recently diverged.

Your model is a waste of arithmetic. You multiplied or divided by everything but your birth date but I've learned not to look at the fancy footwork.

[PatrickHenry]

Lurking ...

[gore3000]

Man did not descend from apes according to science. -me-

What would the common ancestor of the chimpanzee and Australopithecus have looked like?

Changing the subject when proven wrong. Science does not have the missing link even of that. However, since evolution is a model which can predict how everything evolved, suppose you tell us. Let your imagination go wild since science does not have an answer for that. However, asking questions you know the answer to and which you know very well the proof is easily found is quite a bore. Here enjoy being proven wrong again:

The emergence of hominids came from a common ancestor of extant apes and humans from approximately 6-7 mya. FROM:  Archeology Info

These cranial and post-cranial fragments show direct evidence for bipedalism at 6 million years ago! This is somewhere very close to the molecularly-derived date for human-chimp divergence.
FROM: Science in Africa

Humans are primates . Physical and genetic similarities show that the modern human species, Homo sapiens, has a very close relationship to another group of primate species, the apes . Humans and the so-called great apes (large apes) of Africa—chimpanzees (including bonobos, or so-called pygmy chimpanzees) and gorillas —share a common ancestor that lived between 8 million and 5 million years ago. Humans first evolved in Africa, and much of human evolution occurred on that continent. The fossils of early humans who lived between 5 million and 2 million years ago come entirely from Africa.
FROM:  Encarta Encyclopedia

[gore3000]

"You only pointed out that you have your own definition of macroevolution, which you have ignored requests to clarify. This refutes nothing."

Your dishonesty knows no bounds. I had already posted it twice. The post you responded to said that it was posted in #1175. One of the two previous postings was directed to you. Well, here we go again. I am sure that 200-300 posts from now you will tell the same lie again:

MACRO-EVOLUTION

Evolutionists have been trying since Darwin to confuse micro-evolution and macro-evolution. No one disagrees with micro-evolution - the small changes that species make to adapt to their environment. However, the meat of the theory of evolution is not small changes. Indeed, they should not even be called changes at all, they should be called transformations. The theory of evolution posits that step by step through the millenia since life began, species have been transforming themselves into new species each one more complex in their organisms than the previous ones. They posit that fish developed legs and started walking on earth. They posit that reptiles grew wings and became birds. They posit that reptiles again grew mammary glands, became live bearing, and turned themselves into mammals. These transformations by small adaptations were very questionable even when first made. However, genetics and specifically the discovery of DNA has made them quite impossible. Adaptations can occur by single point mutations in a gene. Transformations require not just a totally new gene, but many new genes to be created to support those transformations. The impossibility of this happening by random mutations (and there can be no selection in the creation of a gene since there is no function until the gene is completed) is astronomical. The possibility of thousands of new genes being created for the millions of species living and dead is a total impossibility.

Speciation while a prerequisite to such transformations is not proof of macro-evolution. A species (especially with the loose terminology of evolutionists) can arise (according to evos) by merely being geographically isolated from the rest of the group (guess Robinson Crusoe was not a man anymore because he ended up in a deserted island), it can also (according to the evos) become a new species just because the bird-songs it sings are not recognized for mating by other individuals having all the same characteristics. The classic definition of speciation is the ability to mate and produce offspring. This however is not sufficient because the two species can still have essentially the same characteristics and still not be able to produce offspring with each other. In other words they will still be birds, they will still be fruit flies, they will still be fish. They can be the same in all essential characteristics and still not be able to produce progeny. This is still micro-evolution because the species, neither one, has acquired any new faculties, and has not become more complex in any way.

So to sum up. Macro-evolution is a transformation requiring new genes, more complexity and new faculties. In terms of genetics, it requires at a minimum the creation of more than one new gene. In terms of taxonomy it would require an organism to change into a different genus. ~Genetics part 1 Both dominant and recessive genes have an equal chance of being passed on to the next generation. The passing of genes is random from each allele of each parent regardless of whether a gene is dominant or recessive. The difference between a recessive gene and a dominant gene comes in when it is expressed in the progeny. In a recessive gene you need both genes passed on to the progeny to have the recessive gene for it to be expressed in the individual. In a dominant gene you only need one allele of it in the individual.

Evolutionists have been forced to deal with the problem posed by genetics. That was the reason for the split in evolutionism between Neo-Darwinians, Punk-Eeks(Gould & Eldredge) , and Genetic Drifters (Kirmura). The split over genetic drift (mutations are spread completely at random without the help of selection) came from the realization that it was virtually impossible for small mutations to spread throughout a species because of the halving each time a new progeny is born. Punk-eek also recognizes this and that is why it states that speciation occurs in small isolated populations. It is easier for a gene to spread when individuals in a species are marrying their sisters.

[VadeRetro]

Has science disproven or not disproven that humans came from apes? Showing a range of values in the literature for the time of divergence does nothing to help your point. An uncertainty in the divergence date is not a disproof that the common ancestor was an ape. What is the source for your bizarre claim? You spew this stuff and then run rather than defend.

What is the source for the following interesting quote?

BTW - evos were trying to pass off the hippo as the ancestor of the whale, but they ran into a little trouble - DNA. The DNA proved conclusively that whales did not descend from hippos.

From here.

The same claim was repeated later:

BTW - this discussion is of course purely for amusement since DNA evidence has already shown that whales are not related to hippos as evolutionists have claimed using "evidence" similar to the one presented by you and other evolutionists in this discussion.

That was here, to me.

I noticed here that you were simply ignoring further questions.

You've had funny blinders on ever since.

You have been asked for a source of your claim that science has eliminated apes as an ancestor of humans. Your links do not help you with this at all.

[VadeRetro]

Spamming a whole article again is not the same as answering the questions that were asked about the article in the first place. Rude and crude.

[VadeRetro]

Macroevolution is crossing the genus level? I suppose you have your own definition of genus as well?

[VadeRetro]

The species at the bottom is Pelycodus ralstoni, but at the top we find two species, Notharctus nunienus and Notharctus venticolus. The two species later became even more distinct, and the descendants of nunienus are now labeled as genus Smilodectes instead of genus Notharctus.

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus.

Macroevolution. Now, go away!

How do you cross genus lines? First you speciate.

That event creates the fork in the tree. Later on, somebody notices the branches have moved pretty far apart.

[gore3000]

All genes for similar functions in different species have differences between them. -ME-

It is the actual coding of genes for similar proteins, and more traditionally the proteins themselves, that are mostly compared across species.

Which does not refute my statement above and does not change anything I said in my post. In fact what it does show, is that you were denying something you knew to be true. That is called dishonesty.

[Junior]

You seem incapable of comprehending when we've pointed out to you more than a half dozen times on these threads that Homo Erectus and not Homo Neanderthalensis was the progenitor of modern man -- even after we've shown you the lines of reasoning leading to that conclusion. You simply ignore anything which contradicts your preconceived notions and brazen on as if nothing was ever said.

[Junior]

Macro-evolution is a transformation requiring new genes,

Such as that produced by the gene duplication observed in those monkeys a few weeks back?

more complexity

Such as the development of earbones revealed in the fossil record of mammals?

and new faculties.

Such as the development of flight revealed in the fossil record of birds?

[gore3000]

I've mopped up the floor with you on two threads with your intentionally fraudulent data filtration.

No. Homo erectus is not homo sapiens. The last fossils known of it are much further than Neanderthal from man. In fact, Neanderthal is said to have descended from erectus. Note that all three have different species names, that Neanderthal which descended from erectus could not mate with homo sapeins and has been proven three times, by different scienitsts, from different specimens to not have been a progenitor of man.

So that everyone can see that your statements are untrue, here is proof against your totally out of thin air nonsense about homo erectus (which you have already seen):

Don't let him baffle you with BS. Between H. erectus and modern H. sapiens is a species known as archaic Homo sapiens. Here's a timeline:

[the above was posted by Vade in a thread where he "mopped up the floor" with me. Below my refutation]

That's a really nice graph Vade, but a graph is evidence of nothing except that someone took the time to draw it. However, even that graph proves you to be absolutely wrong. Note that all the known and classified species have a name. Note that there is a big question mark after H. Heidelbergensis some 400,000 years ago. Also note that there is no such thing as an "archaic" anything, that is just a placemarker for something that is unknown. All specimens are named, there are no specimens there, it is just another evolutionary supposition because to evolutionists there must always be an answer other than God.

The only known species of hominids before homo sapiens are homo erectus and Neanderthal. Let's start with homo erectus:

Homo erectus lived from approximately 2 million to around 400,000 years ago.
From:  Homo Erectus

By 1.8 million years ago, one of the early transitional human populations evolved into a new, fully human species in Africa. Most paleoanthropologists refer to them as Homo erectus . However, some researchers now split them into two species--Homo ergaster and Homo erectus. The ergaster fossils were earlier, dating 1.8-1.5 million years ago, and have been found only in East Africa. The erectus discoveries mostly date 1.2-0.4 million years ago and have been found widespread in Africa, Asia, and Europe.
From:  Homo Erectus
Note, the above quote is from exactly the same site from which you got your graph!

The first species to migrate from Africa during the Pleistocene glacial period was Homo erectus. This species was widely disbursed in the time frame of 1.8 - 1 million years ago. They inhabited the regions of southeastern and eastern Asia until approximately 300 000 years ago. Europe, India, China and Indonesia have all yielded evidence of Homo erectus. (Wicander and Monroe 1993 )

Characteristics of Homo erectus are a brain capacity of 800 - 1300 cc, a large face and thick skull, brow ridges and a forehead that recedes. "Tukana Boy" was an African discovery, which shows that Homo erectus had a similar body size to humans. The period that this boy lived in was 1.6 million years ago. (Wicander and Monroe 1993)

Being able to construct tools, such as handaxes, was within the capacity of Homo erectus. Homo erectus, according to some studies, made use of fire and occupied caves. (Wicander and Monroe 1993)
From:From:  Homo Erectus

Even for you the above should be enough to show that homo erectus was not around when homo sapiens first arose.

On to Neanderthal. This is the closest hominid to homo sapiens. In fact, homo sapiens and Neanderthals were alive at the same time. They seem to have dissapeared at about 30,000 years ago while homo sapiens arose from 100,000 to 50,000 years ago.

Scientists have analysed the DNA of a third Neanderthal in an attempt to shed light on the genetic history of early humans.

The results suggest that, like modern humans, Neanderthals expanded from a relatively small number of individuals.

And there is no evidence to indicate that Neanderthals interbred with modern humans, something that has always been a bone of contention among experts.
From:  DNA Clues to Neanderthals

Neanderthal DNA is distinct from modern humans,” Goodwin says, “and there are no examples of humans having Neanderthal-type DNA.
From:  A Breed Apart