Posted on 09/13/2006 3:52:47 PM PDT by DannyTN
Evolution Is Practically Useless, Admits Darwinist 08/30/2006
Supporters of evolution often tout its many benefits. They claim it helps research in agriculture, conservation and medicine (e.g., 01/13/2003, 06/25/2003). A new book by David Mindell, The Evolving World: Evolution in Everyday Life (Harvard, 2006) emphasizes these practical benefits in hopes of making evolution more palatable to a skeptical society. Jerry Coyne, a staunch evolutionist and anti-creationist, enjoyed the book in his review in Nature,1 but thought that Mindell went overboard on Selling Darwin with appeals to pragmatics:
To some extent these excesses are not Mindells fault, for, if truth be told, evolution hasnt yielded many practical or commercial benefits. Yes, bacteria evolve drug resistance, and yes, we must take countermeasures, but beyond that there is not much to say. Evolution cannot help us predict what new vaccines to manufacture because microbes evolve unpredictably. But hasnt evolution helped guide animal and plant breeding? Not very much. Most improvement in crop plants and animals occurred long before we knew anything about evolution, and came about by people following the genetic principle of like begets like. Even now, as its practitioners admit, the field of quantitative genetics has been of little value in helping improve varieties. Future advances will almost certainly come from transgenics, which is not based on evolution at all.Coyne further describes how the goods and services advertised by Mindell are irrelevant for potential customers, anyway:
One reason why Mindell might fail to sell Darwin to the critics is that his examples all involve microevolution, which most modern creationists (including advocates of intelligent design) accept. It is macroevolution the evolutionary transitions between very different kinds of organism that creationists claim does not occur. But in any case, few people actually oppose evolution because of its lack of practical use.... they oppose it because they see it as undercutting moral values.Coyne fails to offer a salve for that wound. Instead, to explain why macroevolution has not been observed, he presents an analogy . For critics out to debunk macroevolution because no one has seen a new species appear, he compares the origin of species with the origin of language: We havent seen one language change into another either, but any reasonable creationist (an oxymoron?) must accept the clear historical evidence for linguistic evolution, he says, adding a jab for effect. And we have far more fossil species than we have fossil languages (but see 04/23/2006). It seems to escape his notice that language is a tool manipulated by intelligent agents, not random mutations. In any case, his main point is that evolution shines not because of any hyped commercial value, but because of its explanatory power:
In the end, the true value of evolutionary biology is not practical but explanatory. It answers, in the most exquisitely simple and parsimonious way, the age-old question: How did we get here? It gives us our family history writ large, connecting us with every other species, living or extinct, on Earth. It shows how everything from frogs to fleas got here via a few easily grasped biological processes. And that, after all, is quite an accomplishment.See also Evolution News analysis of this book review, focusing on Coynes stereotyping of creationists. Compare also our 02/10/2006 and 12/21/2005 stories on marketing Darwinism to the masses.
You heard it right here. We didnt have to say it. One of Darwins own bulldogs said it for us: evolutionary theory is useless. Oh, this is rich. Dont let anyone tell you that evolution is the key to biology, and without it we would fall behind in science and technology and lose our lead in the world. He just said that most real progress in biology was done before evolutionary theory arrived, and that modern-day advances owe little or nothing to the Grand Materialist Myth. Darwin is dead, and except for providing plot lines for storytellers, the theory that took root out of Charlies grave bears no fruit (but a lot of poisonous thorns: see 08/27/2006).
To be sure, many things in science do not have practical value. Black holes are useless, too, and so is the cosmic microwave background. It is the Darwin Party itself, however, that has hyped evolution for its value to society. With this selling point gone, whats left? The only thing Coyne believes evolution can advertise now is a substitute theology to answer the big questions. Instead of an omniscient, omnipotent God, he offers the cult of Tinker Bell and her mutation wand as an explanation for endless forms most beautiful. Evolution allows us to play connect-the-dot games between frogs and fleas. It allows us to water down a complex world into simplistic, easily grasped generalities. Such things are priceless, he thinks. Hes right. It costs nothing to produce speculation about things that cannot be observed, and nobody should consider such products worth a dime.
We can get along just fine in life without the Darwin Party catalog. Thanks to Jerry Coyne for providing inside information on the negative earnings in the Darwin & Co. financial report. Sell your evolution stock now before the bottom falls out.
Next headline on: Evolutionary Theory
Sorry, but when someone says "hey you, it's too early to be in your cups" that means you're calling them a drunkard.
Excuse me, but you made a claim that can be easily checked through a cursory glance at the evidence.
If you did not do this cursory glance, then you obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
As a liar, at least you are not considered ignorant, just dishonest, now I just consider you ignorant.
Not sure which I despise more.
Since I didn't say that, it's clear that's not what I meant.
ROLF!
They're lying, but it's for our own good.
So, just what is your problem?
Why would you say that?
If our common ancestor with the chimp experienced a number of ERV insertions then those changes would be part of both Homo and Pan common descent.
Say "No, it isn't so" ~ we'll never know what to do if you folks start cracking smiles.
I didn't call you a drunk / It depends on what the meaning of IS is... Be honest - You called him a drunk!
You seem miserable. Twenty years with the Post Office can do that. I know, I own a bar a block from a Post Office.
You said, and I quote.
"Ichy my boy, it's too early to drink and get all surly."
Now, what was that supposed to mean?
The rest of the post was pure drivel, as if you are angry at the man for knowing more then you know.
It is called attacking the messenger, and most people that do that are attempting to discredit the messenger, so that the message will be ignored.
Pretty dishonest way to debate, and here you are trying to give me lessons.
Perhaps you should consider listening to what you tell others.
ERV's are assumed, not observed. They do not produce viral particles, but are identified by the presence of sequences that code (or once coded) for viral proteins, including gag (structural proteins), pol (viral enzymes), and env (surface proteins), as well as telltale long terminal repeats.
The ERV 'dating' conclusion is dependent on single organism infections with random integration into the genome and subsequent move to fixation.
They present serious problems for evolution since there are thousands of these things in the human genome alone and the substitution cost to move them all to fixation is tremendous.
The 'best' evidence for evolution is always in the least-understood areas because they allow the greatest level of 'interpretative' overlay.
Since you had no intention to "amuse" it is simply not possible for you to be "funny."
That is what trolls do.
My mother taught me to treat those that I respect, with honor, and respect.
You have neither earned those 2 items, nor are proving worthy of such.
And yes, I still have all my teeth, thank you very much.
You have proven, without a shadow of a doubt, that you are either ignorant, or dishonest, you have also proven that you are a rude individual. I respect none of those traits, therefore you have not earned any sort of respect from me.
Respect is to be earned, not given.
"Common descent" meant one thing BEFORE that finding, and something else AFTER that finding.
When examined, there's not a single candidate for a transitional in the whole bunch!! All you have is FLUFF!
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.
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.
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.
(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.
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
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.
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.
There are 17 defining traits for Erectus. All 17 can still be found in the human population. A group of over 200 modern 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?
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
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.
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
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.
Somebody had to write the rules for the place you know.
You've just been psychoanalyzed via the internet. Welcome to FR!
Lord help us if he starts out that way and only later gets surley.
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.