Saturday, July 22, 2017

Human Evolution: Missing Link Still Missing

The Need For Theory Evaluation

The evolution of humans is, in many ways, similar to evolutionary theory on the whole. As Colin Barras reveals in his recent article at the BBC, There are conflicting evidences, a lack of details, opposing hypotheses held with great confidence, and a wide range of explanatory mechanisms that are routinely used as needed. That much is obvious. What is a bit more subtle, and arguably even more important, is the absence of a serious evaluation of the theories at hand.

Barras’ article is a good summary, from TH Huxley and Darwin up to today, of how evolutionists have viewed human evolution. What is humanity’s phylogenetic neighbor, our so-called sister species, and what is our most recent common ancestor?

Following Huxley, gorillas or chimpanzees were typically held by early evolutionists as both our sister species and representative of the common ancestor, which swung from branch to branch and rambled along on all fours. But some evolutionists held that monkey’s were our closest evolutionary neighbor.

With the rise of molecular biology came genetic comparisons and the firm conclusion that chimpanzees and bonobos are our sister species. Huxley, it seemed, was right. Students were told, in no uncertain terms, that the chimp was our sister species—after all, we shared something like 99% of our DNA in common.

But then new evidences arose, questioning this seemingly incontrovertible truth. Subtle differences between gorillas and chimps suggested independent evolution, rather than inheritance via a common ancestor, of certain traits. Furthermore, a new fossil species, Ardipithecus ramidus, as well as anatomical and behavioral comparisons, called into question the accepted human-chimp relationship.

All of this leaves evolutionists today contemplating a range of explanations for human evolution. One common theme of all the different explanations, however, is their lack of detail. The explanations do not provide any sort of detailed account of the rise of the many unique traits and capabilities in humans.

And where detailed evidence does exist, such as in the chimp, gorilla, and human DNA data, it makes little sense (see here, here, and here, for example).

The theoretical problems and lack of detail with human evolution, and evolution in general, raise the question of how good these theories are. Evolutionists repeatedly state that evolution is a fact, just as much as gravity, heliocentrism, and the roundness of the Earth are facts. There is no question about it.

But the science does not support this claim. What we need is a legitimate, serious evaluation of the theories at hand.


  1. Your third hyperlink in the series 'see here, here and here' does not work.

  2. Boy, the fact that you are 98.7% chimp really pisses you off.

    1. Why are all dirt worshippers so brain dead and stupid? A chimpanzee is an awe inspiring creature. I am personally delighted to have so much in common with such a complex and magnificently designed animal.

      The fact that that humans and chimps have so much in common genetically is a sign of the brilliance and advanced capabilities of the designers. Why reinvent the wheel when you already have a database full of genes and sequences that can be reused and repurposed for new designs?

      Only a brain-dead dirt worshipper would argue that the similarity between chimps and humans support his cretinous religion. In fact, genetically speaking, a chimp is probably much more complex than a human being. Chimps are born with a much larger repertoire of preprogrammed instincts than humans. Human babies must learn almost everything they need to survive.

      I live for the day when Darwinism is eradicated from the world. Dirt worshippers must be ridiculed and opposed at all costs. They are traitors to their own species.

    2. wee willie:
      Boy, the fact that you are 98.7% chimp

      Boy, someone took the bait, hook, line and sinker. Do a little research willie. No one has ever done a complete side by side comparison to see exactly how similar the two genomes really are.

    3. This comment has been removed by the author.

    4. ET: "Do a little research willie."

      I do it every day. How's the toaster repair business going?

    5. acartia blowhard:
      I do it every day.

      No, trying to find your marbles isn't research. It's just a search even if you do it again and again.

      But anyway, nice to see that your delusions and willful ignorance are as solid as ever.

    6. Ahh, your wisdom and insight have been dearly missed. Does frequency still equal wavelength? Inquiring minds want to know.

    7. Well your nonsense and bluffing is never missed but we understand it is all that you have so you have to use it.

      And nice to see that you are still unable to grasp simple explanations. What are you 3 years old?

    8. Even a three year old is mature enough to admit when they make an excuse. What's your excuse?

    9. LoL! All you do is make mistakes. And my explanation would do for anyone who isn't on an agenda of ignorance.

      So what is your problem?

    10. I guess that my problem is that I know that frequency does not equal wavelength.

    11. No, blowhard, your problem is you cannot grasp simple explanations that first graders understand. Add that to the fact you are a bluffing liar and nothing else needs to be said.

    12. That is a possibility. But, please, explain to us again why Frequency equals Wavelength. This should be fun.

    13. willie- you are drooling again and your fly is still open. But thanks for continuing to prove that you are a clueless dolt.

    14. I certainly hope that UD doesn't ban you again. With BA77 and KF missinged in action, you are the braintrust of ID. Mild mannered toaster repairman by day, never tiring shill for an irrational pseudoscience by night.

  3. The "99% same as chimp" is a very broad gloss by comparing only parts of the coding genome (2% of our genome). Chimps have 10% more genome & have many genes we don't have; & we have 700 genes they don't have. Similarity estimates range from ~ 84% to 99%. Only 29% of proteins are identical. There is not enough time for 40 million changes to occur from an ancestor. Chimp and human Y chromosomes are "horrendously different from each other".
    The fact that many organisms share genes should be no surprise to the Christian.
    Similarity can also be the result of a common Designer rather than a common ancestor.

    1. Thank you for that reply. The similarities between lifeforms can have only one acceptable and logical interpretation: Common design. The Darwinist interpretation of common ancestry is brain dead and stupid and, in a sane world, would not be even worth mentioning. Darwinism is a religion of cretins and jackasses with a dishonest and not so hidden agenda.

      I personally believe that there were many designers, all highly advanced, but working on a common or unified goal. As a Christian and a researcher of ancient scriptures, I am acutely aware that Yahweh Elohim consists of many individuals (Elohim is a plural word) and that the scriptures never claimed that there were only one God. In fact, the opposite is true: The Yahweh Elohim acknowledged the existence of other gods, lots of them.

      The claim is that Yahweh Elohim is ONE, in the same sense that Yin and Yang are ONE. They value unity more than anything else.

      The incredible variety in design styles and aesthetics observed in nature is strong evidence for a multiplicity of designers. Indeed, the designers seemed to have had a predilection for bugs, almost as if they were having fun in seeing how many different types of bugs they could come up with.

    2. RE: <<< the scriptures never claimed that there were only one God >>>

      Not so, this was the foundational belief of both the OT and NT -

      “Hear, O Israel: The Yahweh our elohym, the Yahweh is one!” (Deut.6:4)

      Which Jesus quoted and endorsed as the great commandment of the Law –

      “Jesus answered him, “The first of all the commandments is: ‘Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is one” (Matt.12:29).

      Such was endorsed and expanded upon by the OT prophets – for example -

      “Look to Me, and be saved, All you ends of the earth! For I am God (el = might or power), and there is no other” (Isaiah.45:22).

      “Remember the former things of old, For I am God (el), and there is no other; I am God (elohym), and there is none like Me” (Isaiah.46:9).

      Furthermore, you misrepresent the nature of the plural in Hebrew. It is not exactly equivalent to the plural in English.

    3. KBH: Not so

      I'm not interested in arguing this topic with you. I stand by what I wrote. See you around.

  4. On The skeptical Zone this issue came up also.
    By way of evolution news and views.

    Mr Hunter here has often brought up convergent evolution claims and how they undercut the whole concept of figuring origins based on comparative anatomy and genetics.

    It is all about comparing bones right from darwins day.
    Thats all they do.
    Its a summing up of traits. genetics sums up DNA traits.
    Yet its unrelated to biological inveswtigation. its all after the fact.

    The apes were made by god first. man came later in creation week.
    God knows we are a perfect match for primates.
    In fact the only beings in creation week who were exactly alike.
    Why? Because we were denied a body of our own. We are made in gods image. So our identity is , uniquely, unrelated to our biology.
    So we can't have our own body. so we have someone else's. The best one for fun and profit.
    I welcome 100% DNA likeness. possibl;y it was and only later both groups changed.

    However anatomy/genetics is nothing more then comparing things with a presumption it means common decent.
    Thats not science in proper investigation and not science in biology since no biology is involved. oNly other subjects.