Creation: Darwinian Evolutionary Frauds Pt. IX
You are currently browsing comments. If you would like to return to the full story, you can read the full entry here: “Creation: Darwinian Evolutionary Frauds Pt. IX”.
6 Comments
Leave a Reply
-
The Boston 3-Day
I will be walking the Boston 3-Day the last weekend in July in honor of Gregg's mom, Ryta Gail, who died from breast cancer when he was a little boy.
Find me on Facebook
Safe Site
We are committed to keeping the content on this site
family friendly and child safe.
-
Gregg & Hallee
Find Me on My Author Blog
* 
“It is a fact that Darwinists eagerly desire evidence that man descended from a monkey-like ancestor. ”
Of course biologists desire evidence. They want to understand as much as possible about all living forms and their evolutionary history. And the history of the evolution of humans is definitely interesting.
But the way you have stated it – that biologists ‘desire evidence that man descended from a monkey-like ancestor – implies to me that you’re suggesting that biologists need evidence to support an idea that would otherwise be without basis. That is not the way it is. In biology, the evidence for evolution in general for all life-forms to have evolved from ancestral life-forms is so strong that there has not been any doubt about for a long time. Humans are animals, humans are mammals, humans are primates, and even if there were no fossil evidence at all, it follows that humans evolved from earlier primates. This is how biological systems work. The bone structure, the organs, and especially the DNA show the close relationships humans have to other primates. The DNA shows good examples of evolution – the vitamin C example is one of them. That humans evolved from ancestral primates is not a question at this point in evolutionary biology. (It might not be convincing to you, but it is overwhelmingly convincing to biologists.) It might have been a question a hundred years ago, but it is not a question now. It would take an amazingly strong unexpected collection of evidence to the contrary to make this an issue again.
Of course biologists want more details and more fossils – that’s the fascination of science, to always look for more detail in understanding the world. But biologists don’t need more fossils to valiudate the evolution of humans from ancestral primates – there is evidence for that already. Is there detailed information for every single mutation and adaptation that happened? No. But that kind of precise detail is not necessary to make a strong case for human evolution.
You might think everything I just wrote is wrong and deluded. But the point I’m trying to make is that when you portray biologists as frantically trying to find some fossil as if the idea of human evolution is in danger without it, your portrayal is just not true. To an evolutionary biologist, evolution is rock-solid at this time – it is long past being questioned, not because of blind faith but because of the accumulation of so many lines of interconnecting evidence. Of course they want to make discoveries, not because they think there’s no evidence, but because they want to fill in the details. This idea of the biologists desperately trying to manufacture or stretch evidence to cover some gaping hole is not reality. It’s false.
I don’t think you are deluded, I simply disagree. I believe the entire thing is still dependent upon a pretty gigantic ASSUMPTION.
.
I have NO ARGUMENT with the fact that man has descended from a common ancestor. A pair of them, actually, and I even think I know their names. They were human. I believe in common ancestors within kinds.
.
My argument is with the ASSUMPTION that man came from monkey. And there isn’t any fossil evidence that such a thing ever took place.
I’m so glad you’re putting this up here! I never really understood how “they” got the theory of evolution out of the bones that they showed in text books- it wasn’t until I started learning about creationism that it made sense. The theory came first, then they tried to get the bones to do what they wanted.
Yes, there are a lot of similarities between living species, due to us all coming from the same creator :)
Hi Gregg,
.
You wrote:
“Today, this find has been reclassified as a member of Australopithecus, an extinct family of ape. It is widely recognized that this is not an ancestor of man although you may have trouble finding that data anywhere other than Creationist sources.”
.
I had no trouble at all. I found it on both talkorigins.org and Wikipedia. Neither of those can be described as Creationist sources and Wikipedia is the second hit in a Google search for “Nutcracker man”.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.
Okay, I checked. As I said, neither one of those sites states that it is widely recognized that Australopithecus is not an ancestor of man.
.
What was it you were trying to say?
Hi Gregg,
.
Okay, I made a mistake. I’m not quite sure what I was thinking now. The wikipedia page doesn’t make that statement like I thought it did. The talk.origins page does make that statement, but not where I directed you to. In the summary, it says:
.
.
May peace be with you,
Neil.