Posted on 12/25/2010 4:00:25 AM PST by wendy1946
No normal science theory is ever defended the way evolution is. What IS defended in that sort of manner are lifestyles, tenures, entrenched positions, and careers which have been built pyramid-style atop a base row which is sitting on quicksand. The people sitting ten or eleven rows of stones up don't like being told that the whole thing is unworkable.
What most people are unaware of is that the whole theory of evolution has been overwhelmingly refuted a number of times and via a number of totally unrelated arguments to such an extent that ANY normal science theory under the same circumstances would have been rejected and thrown out literally decades ago.
The first such disproof and the one which rightfully should have ended the debate involved fruit flies. Fruit flies breed new generations every other day so that running any sort of a decades-long experiment with fruit flies will involve more generations of them than there have ever been of anything even remotely resembling humans on our planet. Those flies were subjected to everything in the world known to cause mutations and the mutants were recombined every possible way; all they ever got were sterile freaks, and fruit flies. Several prominent scientists publicly denounced evolution at that point in time including the famous case of Richard Goldschmidt.
The failure was due to the fact that our entire living world is driven by information and the only information there ever was in the picture was that for a fruit fly. When the DNA/RNA information scheme was discovered, even if the fruit fly thing had never happened, evolution should have been discarded on the spot. But GIVEN the fact of the fruit fly experiments, somebody HAD to have thought to himself "Hey, THAT'S THE REASON THE FRUIT FLY EXPERIMENTS FAILED!!!!!!"
The DNA/RNA system is an information code just like C#, Java, or C++. Information codes do not just sort of happen or appear amongst inanimate matter for no particular reason. In other words, there is no way in the world anybody should be believing in evolution 40 years after the discovery of DNA and, again, that's just one overwhelming disproof amongst a number of such. Again no legitimate science theory would ever survive such a history.
There is the question of the probabilistic odds against any sort of life forming from inanimate matter via any random sequence of events; the junk science reports we now read about "string" theory and "multiple universes" is basically motivated by a recognition of what the odds are against evolution in the one universe we actually have any evidence for.
And then there is the Haldane dilemma, which amounts to an understanding of the time spans which would be needed to spread ANY genetic change through any group of creatures. A very simple version of the thing is all most intelligent people should need:
Imagine a population of 100,000 apes or "proto-humans" ten million years ago which are all genetically alike other than for two with a "beneficial mutation". Imagine also that this population has the human or proto-human generation cycle time of roughly 20 years.
Imagine that the beneficial mutation in question is so good, that all 99,998 other die out immediately (from jealousy), and that the pair with the beneficial mutation has 100,000 kids and thus replenishes the herd.
Imagine that this process goes on like that for ten million years, which is more than anybody claims is involved in "human evolution". The max number of such "beneficial mutations" which could thus be substituted into the herd would be ten million divided by twenty, or 500,000 point mutations which, Walter Remine notes, is about 1/100 of one percent of the human genome, and a miniscule fraction of the 2 to 3 percent that separates us from chimpanzees, or the half of that which separates us from neanderthals.
That basically says that even given a rate of evolutionary development which is fabulously beyond anything which is possible in the real world, starting from apes, in ten million years the best you could possibly hope for would be an ape with a slightly shorter tail.
People who have carried out the math for real-world rates of substitution come up with it taking quadrillions of years for our present living world to have evolved in any fashion even if that were possible, which it isn't.
So evolution needs quadrillions of years... how much time do they (evolutionites) actually have? A very big part of the answer has been coming in lately in the form of blood, blood vessels, and raw meat turning up in dinosaur remains:
In other words, Midrashic sources and Amerind oral traditions are basically correct in describing human interaction with dinosaurs just a few thousand years ago (there is no way raw meat and blood can survive for millions of years) and the thing we've heard all our lives about dinosaurs dying out all our lives is a bunch of BS.
A theory which needs quadrillions of years and only has a few thousand is basically FUBAR; no reasonably well educated person should ever buy into it.
What about humans, hominids such as the Neanderthal, and the stories we keep seeing in the news about some new human ancestor of the year which is supposedly going to save evolutionism, and what about the 30,000 and 200,000 year time frames involved in those stories?
In order to be descended from something via any process resembling evolution, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something. Thus the curious total lack of any real evidence of modern man ever interbreeding with Neanderthals was always viewed as a big mystery particularly since there was evidence of the two groups living in close proximity for long periods. James Shreeve described the problem in an article published in Discover magazine in the mid 90s:
"Humans love to mate. They mate all the time, by night and by day, through all the phases of the female’s reproductive cycle. Given the opportunity, humans throughout the world will mate with any other human. The barriers between races and cultures, so cruelly evident in other respects, melt away when sex is at stake. Cortés began the systematic annihilation of the Aztec people--but that did not stop him from taking an Aztec princess for his wife. Blacks have been treated with contempt by whites in America since they were first forced into slavery, but some 20 percent of the genes in a typical African American are white. Consider James Cook’s voyages in the Pacific in the eighteenth century. Cook’s men would come to some distant land, and lining the shore were all these very bizarre-looking human beings with spears, long jaws, browridges, archeologist Clive Gamble of Southampton University in England told me. God, how odd it must have seemed to them. But that didn’t stop the Cook crew from making a lot of little Cooklets.Project this universal human behavior back into the Middle Paleolithic. When Neanderthals and modern humans came into contact in the Levant, they would have interbred, no matter how strange they might initially have seemed to each other. If their cohabitation stretched over tens of thousands of years, the fossils should show a convergence through time toward a single morphological pattern, or at least some swapping of traits back and forth.
But the evidence just isn’t there, not if the TL and ESR dates are correct. Instead the Neanderthals stay staunchly themselves. In fact, according to some recent ESR dates, the least Neanderthalish among them is also the oldest. The full Neanderthal pattern is carved deep at the Kebara cave, around 60,000 years ago. The moderns, meanwhile, arrive very early at Qafzeh and Skhul and never lose their modern aspect. Certainly, it is possible that at any moment new fossils will be revealed that conclusively demonstrate the emergence of a Neandermod lineage. From the evidence in hand, however, the most likely conclusion is that Neanderthals and modern humans were not interbreeding in the Levant..."
And then in the late 1990s results of DNA studies of Neanderthal remains began to come in and cleared up the mystery:
"He said his team ran four separate tests for authenticity - checking whether other amino acids had survived, making sure the DNA sequences they found did not exist in modern humans, making sure the DNA could be replicated in their own lab and then getting other labs to duplicate their results. Comparisons with the DNA of modern humans and of apes showed the Neanderthal was about halfway between a modern human and a chimpanzee."
That's right: the Neanderthal was basically an advanced ape whose DNA was almost exactly halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee, and we could no more interbreed with Neanderthals than we could with horses. Even the prestigeious PlosBiology system gave up on the idea (No Evidence of Neandertal mtDNA Contribution to Early Modern Humans).
Clearly that should have been the end of any talk about modern humans having evolved from hominids since all other hominids were significantly FURTHER removed from us THAN the neanderthal. Nonetheless evolutionites go on talking about a "common ancestor(TM) for both ourselves and Neanderthals, 5000,000 years back. That of course is idiotic; it's as if somebody had discovered some reason why dogs could not be descended from wolves, and the evolutionites were to claim that therefore they (dogs) must be descended directly from fish.
But what about the time frames? We've seen that the time frmes we read about for dinosaurs are totally FUBAR, what about the 50,000 and 200,000 and 500,000 year time spans you read about for supposed human ancestors? Do evolutionites have the sort of time they'd need to even be talking about hominid/human evolution?
Gunnar Heinsohn is best/brightest category in European academia and a frequent speaker at NATO gatherings since his population youth bulge theories predict political unrest with near 100% accuracy; he's also a major player in the ongoing efforts to reconstruct Med-basin chronologies. His "Wie Alt ist das Menschengeschlect" describes the problem with the dating schemes typically associated with Neanderthal studies:
Mueller-Karpe, the first name in continental paleoanthropology, wrote thirty years ago on the two strata of homo erectus at Swanscombe/England: "A difference between the tools in the upper and in the lower stratum is not recognizable. (From a geological point of view it is uncertain if between the two strata there passed decades, centuries or millennia.)" (Handbuch der Vorgeschichte, Vol I, Munich 1966, p. 293).
The outstanding scholar never returned to this hint that in reality there may have passed ten years where the textbooks enlist one thousand years. Yet, I tried to follow this thread. I went to the stratigraphies of the Old Stone Age which usually look as follows
modern man (homo sapiens sapiens)
Neanderthal man (homo sapiens neanderthalensis)
Homo erectus (invents fire and is considered the first intelligent man).
In my book "Wie alt ist das Menschengeschlecht?" [How Ancient is Man?], 1996, 2nd edition, I focused for Neanderthal man on his best preserved stratigraphy: Combe Grenal in France. Within 4 m of debris it exhibited 55 strata dated conventionally between -90,000 and -30,000. Roughly one millennium was thus assigned to some 7 cm of debris per stratum. Close scrutiny had revealed that most strata were only used in the summer. Thus, ca. one thousand summers were assigned to each stratum. If, however, the site lay idle in winter and spring one would have expected substratification. Ideally, one would look for one thousand substrata for the one thousand summers. Yet, not even two substrata were discovered in any of the strata. They themselves were the substrata in the 4 m stratigraphy. They, thus, were not good for 60,000 but only for 55 years.
I tested this assumption with the tool count. According to the Binfords' research--done on North American Indians--each tribal adult has at least five tool kits with some eight tools in each of them. At every time 800 tools existed in a band of 20 adults. Assuming that each tool lasted an entire generation (15 female years), Combe Grenals 4,000 generations in 60,000 years should have produced some 3.2 million tools. By going closer to the actual life time of flint tools tens of millions of tools would have to be expected for Combe Grenal. Ony 19,000 (nineteen thousand) remains of tools, however, were found by the excavators.
There seems to be no way out but to cut down the age of Neanderthal man at Combe Grenal from some 60,000 to some 60 years.
I applied the stratigraphical approach to the best caves in Europe for the entire time from Erectus to the Iron Age and reached at the following tentative chronology for intelligent man:
-600 onwards Iron Age
-900 onwards Bronze Age
-1400 beginning of modern man (homo sapiens sapiens)
-1500 beginning of Neanderthal man
between -2000 and -1600 beginning of Erectus.
Since Erectus only left the two poor strata like at Swanscombe or El-Castillo/Spain, he should actually not have lasted longer than Neanderthal-may be one average life expectancy. I will now not go into the mechanism of mutation. All I want to remind you of is the undisputed sequence of interstratification and monostratification in the master stratigraphies. This allows for one solution only: Parents of the former developmental stage of man lived together with their own offspring in the same cave stratum until they died out. They were not massacred as textbooks have it:
monostrat.: only modern man's tools
interstrat.: Neanderthal man's and modern man's tools side by side
monostrat.: only Neanderthal man's tools
interstrat.: Neanderthal man's and Erectus' tools side by side
monotstrat.: only Erectus tools (deepest stratum for intelligent man)
The year figures certainly sound bewildering. Yet, so far nobody came up with any stratigraphy justifiably demanding more time than I tentatively assigned to the age of intelligent man. I always remind my critiques that one millennium is an enormous time span--more than from William the Conqueror to today's Anglo-World. To add a millenium to human history should always go together with sufficient material remains to show for it. I will not even mention the easiness with which scholars add a million years to the history of man until they made Lucy 4 million years old. The time-span-madness is the last residue of Darwinism.
Heinsohn is not putting an exact age on the Neanderthal die-out; what he IS stating is that there is no legitimate interpretation of existing evidence which would indicate that they died out any more than four or five thousand years ago and that is basically consistent with the thing about raw dinosaur meat.
That of course is nowhere remotely close to the time frames which any sort of an evolutionary scheme of modern man from hominids would require. We are left with three basic choices:
Those are your three basic choices and none of them involve evolution. Moreover the second and third choices merely amount to kicking the can a block or two down the road as far as how anything like modern man ever came into existence anywhere in the universe at all since the the same mathematical and probabilistic laws which prevent macroevolution on this planet would hold true anywhere else. The 17B years which supposedly intervene since the "Big Bang(TM)" wouldn't be enough for modern man to evolve in the universe even if that were possible which it isn't, and even if the Big Bang idea itself weren't just another bunch of BS like evolution, which it is.
Odd. I am a Christian because God, through Christ, has transformed me into a new creature. Has nothing to do with what anybody thinks.
As Peter says in IIPeter 3, there were/are three different heaven/earth ages. We in flesh bodies are passing through the 'second' heaven/earth age. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. That is a declaration and nowhere in the whole of the Bible are we told when this took place.
Genesis 1:2 AND ..... describes a catastrophic upheaval, Paul calls it the 'the foundation' which is actually a verb that means the 'casting down - overthrow', wherein some were predestined to do/be because of their 'perfect' love in Christ.
No one in flesh walking this earth can with for a certainty date this earth. But all the evidence demonstrates this earth is very very old.
This is a concept that I have broached on a few of the crevo threads. I'm usually told that the only reason scientists advocate for an old Earth is that their commitment to godless evolution requires the aeons needed for evolution to work. So that once I accept that there is a Creator, my belief in an old Earth can be discarded like a no longer needed crutch.
Fortunately for me and every other soul we have the perfect Judge and only He knows the 'intent' of any one heart/mind. The age of the heavens and earth are in my opinion a total side issue as to how long ago 'flesh human' bodies were formed. I cannot quite comprehend the miracle of how all the many peoples we can readily see are different could come from only two people. That speaks of evolution in really quick time.
It is my opinion that evolutionists know they are factually correct on an old earth and some know they are anti-god in claiming we flesh humans were spawned out of a primordial steaming pot of pond scum. Some of the intellectuals know this is a lie.
For example, a great case has been made that the Sphinx in Egypt is 10,000 years old. It defies conventional modern science by using hydrology to explain the type of wear and tear that they Sphinx has.
Modern Science is perpetually in upheaval. Things are constantly being proved AND disproved. But evidence relies on science to disprove science. New methods, new algorithms, new technologies.
CAVEAT: I am very religious person. But somehow, when it comes to science, I have relied more on the “modern” science method
Getting anti-evolutionists to understand math is hopeless.
“Believe in Science” is a phrase. At the end of the day, the reason it is NOT a religion is that it has no fixed precepts. It “evolves” (to use a phrase) based on our knowledge.
Back in the 19th century, Newtonian physics “ruled”. Now “Einsteinien” physics dominates. Who knows where we go from here.
Science is a journey of discovery. It is constantly disproving itself.
Religion is more set. For example, I believe in God. I don’t think any evidence is going to make me rethink that belief.
However, in God’s universe, I believe we have the capacity to learn new things.
You're leaving out beneficial mutations such as duplications, which voids your math and conclusions.
So God spends billions of years creating us and this is how you show your appreciation?
FR Modern Science (or FRMS for short)
Why just two? Don't you think there should be separate realities and separate worlds of science for blacks and whites, straight and gay, Christian and Jewish... ? Everybody's entitled to opinions but nobody is entitled to his or her own facts. There can only be one true history or true body of science.
I mean, tell me where you see anything about religious doctrine or what's non-modern in the posting above. I'm not into pushing religion. I'll RECOMMEND Christianity to anybody who ASKS for a recommendation but that has nothing to do with this topic.
What I DO believe is that evolution is junk science and that, as junk science goes, a spectacularly dangerous variety, that it has already caused enough harm and damage in the world, and that it is time to get rid of it.
You can pick any religion you want or any idea about the age of the Earth you want, but you need to understand that evolution is not intellectually respectable, and that ANY religion is a better choice including Voodoo and Rastafari. Neither Voodoo nor Rastafari require belief in infinite sequences of probabilistic miracles and zero-probability events.
You are probably right.
I think that there exists a fault line between biblical conservatives and “modern” conservatives, that should NOT exist.
I believe in God, Family, private property and our Constitution. I may not believe in a 5000 year old Earth.
However, that does not separate me from Sarah Palin. At the end of the day I want Sarah (or any other conservative President) to create an atmosphere, where we are left the HECK ALONE and allowed to practice our own beliefs.
All choices would be made by consenting and clinically sane adults. So, by definition, Abortion would thus be totally illegal, as the Fetus CANNOT consent to being murdered.
If the libertarians could be 100% opposed to Abortion and get it through their thick skulls that Drugs make a human being not be fully “sane” or “normal” (and thus no longer a true “individual” or “Consentor”), then I would be a libertarian.
However, their support of Abortion and Drugs.. is a deal killer for me.
I suspect that I have done more theoretical and engineering math than most, but enjoy your conceit anyway.
With all the liberal views that you hold in regards to social conservatism, and Christians, you clearly have more reasons for rejecting God than just creation.
If libertarians became conservative, then they wouldn't be libertarians.
Assuming there WAS such a thing in the world (there isn't) as a beneficial mutation, then to get past the Haldane dilemma you'd have to be substituting very large numbers of beneficial mutations into the population on a continual basis.
In other words, you'd need to get God to suspend the laws of probability for your benefit. The problem is that the overwhelming bulk of mutations are harmful or fatal and that substituting large numbers of mutations into a population of animals will destroy it. The short version of the dilemma I noted involves one beneficial mutation per generation being substituted into the population which is wildly beyond anything that could ever happen in real life. Haldane himself came to a number sort of like 300 generations to substitute one mutation into any sizable population of creatures and that's without the population being scattered across continents. That's where the talk of quadrillions of years comes from.
“If libertarians became conservative, then they wouldn’t be libertarians.”
I disagree. To be a libertarian, you have to belive in liberty. To believe in liberty means that every human has innate rights about his or her well being.
Abortion contradicts that. No one is asking the fetus, if she/he is ready to be killed. It is a one-sided decision by the mother
Same applies to Drugs. If you have taken drugs, you are no longer in control of your mind and thus cannot make any decisions about your liberty. You are now a slave.
Thus, taken intelectually, both of these stands are contradictory to the inherent “liberties” in “libertarians”
I would venture over half of America would vote libertarian, if they would change these two positions.
As far as I know the only difference between a conservative and a libertarian, or a liberal and a libertarian, is which portion of their agenda you are looking at.
Libertarians are conservative on economic issues, and liberal on social/cultural, immigration, and national defense.
If Libertarians move right on abortion and such, then they start losing the need to use their language of separation from conservatives, and they approach being conservative.
Well, I guess you haven't noticed that the evos are too. They =believe= so it must be true. My objections to evolution and geology are scientific, not religious. The supposed experts want to gloss over their contradictions because they don't have any better stories to tell. I am troubled by contradictions. I am not troubled by not having answers.
ML/NJ
The scientists are WRONG. We didn’t evolve from monkeys. We evolved from fuzzy bunnies. And bunnies evolved from hamsters.
**I** said it, and so it is!
The happiest day of my life will be the day I go to vote in an election and the choices are between Republicans and Libertarians, and the demoKKKrat party is an ugly footnote in history books with the last of its leaders rotting in prison cells or in cages at the National Zoo on Connecticut Avenue with the bars welded shut and signs posted not to feed them through the bars.
“The happiest day of my life will be the day I go to vote in an election and the choices are between Republicans and Libertarians”
Ditto!
In my fantasy world, I would see three parties:
1. The SoCon party. This would be a social conservative party. Would be the party of God etc. Uber conservative socially, moderate economically, moderate on personal liberty (as God would be imposed on society)
2. The small “l” liberal party: These guys would be social moderates but economic uber conservatives. Also, high on personal liberty.
3. The Reformed Libertarians. Socially “liberal”, economically uber conservative, and huge emphasis on personal liberty (live free or die!)
I think three such parties would create a good balance. The SoCons would compromise with the “l”iberals to keep some public morals.
The Liberterians would compromise with “l”iberals to preserve individual liberty
All three would keep economic liberty.
Probably the “l”iberal party would dominate with 40% of the vote. The SoCons would get 35% and the Libertarians would get 25%
You know, it’s really kinda comical, watching people try to decipher hidden bible codes, arguing over the age of the earth, evolution, bizzare interpretations of old testament stuff, meatless fridays, or whatever,,etc.
The only thing that matters is do you believe Jesus is the son of God, (or am i supposed to say G-D, yeshua, yahweh, jehova,,,i get confused) And that this man Jesus died on the cross for your sins. If you believe that, the rest suddenly turns into a silly parlor game.
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.