29. My Favorite Comments
The page begins below.
I am attacked so frequently, that I decided to post my most positive and intelligent comments. That way, when I feel the slings and arrows of being an anti-evolutionist, I can read these for a bit of cheer. Because good letters and comments are better than a good beer. So, to those of you who are supportive, THANKS! I really do appreciate it. I wish I could dig through and find some of my past favorite posts. Too time consuming. But the new positive ones will sure make it to this page now. And in a while I will search for the older ones, because there are some great ones for sure.
Another great Brian (9pt9) comment. Thanks Bri: Steve Some of the most unique things about your videos is your communication style. You have a perfectly “evolved” blend of humor and information! like the voice inflection effect you have that makes you sound like a chipmunk when you say “personal incredulity”. It’s so funny because you know they are going to attack you with that and you beat them to it by including it in the video! That probly infuriates them, genius! Then you made Dawkin’s mouth move while you read his book with that voice! You totally mock their god! It’s so refreshing seeing Dawkins get spanked bc I think he is particularly vicious, condescending and mean. (So the more you mock him the better!). The music you put on adds a great touch. You stop and start it at the right times and I really sets you a cut above as an expert and the evo’s know it! Plus the music makes them know you are a confident guy. I know the evo’s are scared of your videos. The ostrich with his head in the sand was hysterical btw! Thunderf00t is a really evil evo, I hope you spank him one day and I’m sure many of us do! I’ve only discovered you videos last night at 11pm and stayed up til 230 watching them. Ive been hooked on the evo / ID debate for the last 2months. Most of the vids are pro evo. Ive been in many exchanges with evo’s and they are mean. But even tho I’m confident in my position of ID it can take its toll on my mind doing battle and watching their videos to learn their stuff. So to stumble across you videos was a stream in the desert to say the least. Your work has given me a new strength and Im sure im not the only one who feels the same. Thank you thank you God bless you! And: So did fruit and vegetables evolve out of a self sacrifice? We’ll go this way and stop at being food so the upper echelon can have something to further the pointless cause with. What environmental pressure causes on speciation to become a mango and another a bird. Hmm Maybe if I learn to evolve eye appealing, juicy meated , sweet tasting fruit, it’ll be beneficial! And here is another great brian comment. Spot on with me: Universal vs. Organic life This was the principal that jogged my brain and turned me to ID. Its interesting that in all of my youtubing the only topics covered pertain to living matter and its evo/origins. If one considers the atom, it is a highly “organized” structure. The number of pros, neuts, elecs determine its behavior and properties. So organized that to split its organization creates a powerfully destructive force which i believe would be considered ionizing radiation. Point being, atoms are not random and an observer would have to consider it to be organized (like a cell). That conclusion is inescapable. To a mind not in lockstep the organization of even just one atom would demonstrate that it must be the product of intelligence. The evos would have to pose another “abiogenesis theory” for non living matter. That task would be an imposing one. In chiropractic philosophy 2 kinds of life are described. For purposes of demonstration here are the definitions: Intelligence: the ability to cause organization Life: the expression of intelligence through matter Universal life: the expression of intelligence though non-living matter Organic life: the expression of intelligence through organic matter that causes an organism to express the signs of life,,adaptation, repro, etc…. Force: the link between intelligence and matter.(ie electro magnetic chemical bonds, or an electrical nerve impulse causing the heart to beat faster) So even though a rock for example is not “alive” by the normal def it still is on and atomic level, in motion and being held in active organization by intelligence. This would demonstrate Universal life. The major premise of this philosophy is “there is a universal intelligence in all matter which continually gives to it all of its properties and action and thus maintains it in existence.” It is noteworthy that the term “intelligence” is not God. It may be an expression of God but that falls into the discussion of theology. So Ive noticed the evos only argue for the behavior of organic life and take for granted inert matter which really is not inert, is in motion, and is in a way an expression of life (intelligence through matter) Thanks again for a world class comment! allan3141 One of my big regrets about Evolution Theory is that when the future scientific community (doing real science) is looking back at the 19th century religion of the Neo-darwinians and asking themselves “how on earth could these people believe that?” These poeple will not be there to see it 😦 I actually feel I want it on record that I did not go along with such nonsense. It embarresses me to think they will think us ALL that credulous and naive. The scientific method could lead to pure refutation of a Theory with no replacement in view.
Steve, I appreciate your inquisitive and skeptical nature and look forward to reading on in your blog. Perhaps you pose similar questions yourself later, but this seemed a likely place to get a response, so here goes… 1. My understanding of the ev viewpoint is that ALL life is transitional because there is no FINISH LINE. 2. If a. there is no goal in MNS, and b. most mutations are deleterious or neutral, what is the estimated percentage of useful vs. neutral-harmful mutations? Has anyone tried to put a number on this? 3. I would expect this percentage to be less than .01% since they are completely random, maybe with many more zeros preceding the 1. (I got no math skillz) 4. This said I would expect random mutations to be the NECESSARY rule rather than the exception to the rule just to conform to the math. 5. Wouldn’t most life be CONSTANTLY growing random TRIAL eyes, ears, noses, etc…? 6. As it is very difficult to make a fossil –and most fossils should have either deleterious or neutral mutations according to the math- why do they all look fully formed and “normal” (no fish covered head-to-tail in fins, or eighteen-legged mammals)? Ultimately the numbers trip me up on evo every time. I just can’t buy it. from Hacksaw38, in a debate with DNAunion: Next you obviously don’t know anything about evolution or you’d know mutations are detrimental. Natural selection is nature’s way of overcoming and protecting against them. If you disagree you’re only proving that you don’t know anything about evolution.
Thus to go from something like an earthworm to a fine tuned eagle would be impossible due to this accumulation of non-harmful but useless mutations. The drag in Darwin’s perpetual motion device I don’t hear anyone talking about. Thanks again This comment is from Jan 10/11/09. The source is a creationist periodical. The information is spot on , and completely scientific, so no need for evolutionauts to rag on the source. Science is science. For the whole comment read below. “Life works via the constant (often lightning-fast) movement of molecular machinery in cells. Cells are totally filled with solids and liquids—there are no free spaces. The molecular machines and the cell architecture and internal structures are made up of long-chain organic polymers (e.g. proteins, DNA, RNA, carbohydrates, lipids) while the liquid is mostly water. All forms of movement are subject to the laws of motion, yet the consequences of this simple physical fact have been almost universally ignored in biology.
No such thing as a vestigial anything. The very idea of it is circular logic. It’s a case of evolution proving vestigial structures and vestigial structures proving evolution. It’s the same as the fundies who use the Bible to prove the Bible. If these “vestigial” structures were growing into some kind of useful organ that would be evolution, but that isn’t what is happening. This is purely an example of argument from ignorance. We don’t know what they are so they MUST be vestigial. Every day science discovers the actual usefulness of one after another of these structures proving they are not vestigial at all. If they are vestigial they are devolving not evolving. Losing an organ from lack of use is not evolution. How can you call “if you don’t use it, you lose it” evolution? The real name for it is “atrophy” and that is anything, but evolution.Why isn’t there a list of structures that are developing into new improved organs? Why is it assumed that these structures are being lost? The appendix, could certainly be an organ that is evolving into something more useful. Why aren’t they looking at it from that angle? Is it because they know they can’t prove it so they just say it’s something being lost while not really knowing? If evolution were true there should be at least ONE organ somewhere that is evolving into something useful, but there isn’t. Evolutionists don’t understand their own screwed up theory.
PZG4SS to an evo zealot PatchesRips (Apr 25, 2010) : I wonder what his take is on the enzyme your lungs produce in order to counteract the surface tension of water…without it, we’d suffocate to death very soon! That’s somewhat of an “either-or” situation….hard to explain with evolution. It would have needed to work perfectly with the proto-lungs straight from the beginning or else evolution stops dead, literally. ProudtobeLoud, Re: the poorly designed retina:(05/08/10) from an article Darwinists have claimed for years that the human eye is an example of bad design, because it is wired backwards the photoreceptors are located behind a tangle of blood vessels and other material. But then in 2007, German scientists found that cone-shaped cells called Müller cells act like waveguides that transmit the light through the tangles straight into the photoreceptors (05/02/2007). Some Darwinists responded that this was only a makeshift correction effected by the tinkering of natural selection. It did not change the argument that the eye was poorly designed, they said. Now, more facts have come to light about those Müller cells. Researchers at the Technion-Israel Institute of Technology in Haifa have found out that they do far more than just conduct light to the photoreceptors. Kate McAlpine reported for New Scientist that Müller cells offer several advantages. They act as noise filters, tuners and color focusers: At least two types of light get inside the eye: light carrying image information, which comes directly through the pupil, and noise that has already been reflected multiple times within the eye. The simulations showed that the Müller cells transmit a greater proportion of the former to the rods and cones below, while the latter tends to leak out. This suggests the cells act as light filters, keeping images clear. The researchers also found that light that had leaked out of one Müller cell was unlikely to be taken up by a neighbour, because the surrounding nerve cells help disperse it. Whats more, the intrinsic optical properties of Müller cells seemed to be tuned to visible light, leaking wavelengths outside and on the edges of the visible spectrum to a greater extent. The cells also seem to help keep colours in focus. Just as light separates in a prism, the lenses in our eyes separate different colours, causing some frequencies to be out of focus at the retina. The simulations showed that Müller cells wide tops allow them to collect any separated colours and refocus them onto the same cone cell, ensuring that all the colours from an image are in focus…. These findings were made by Amichai Labin and Erez Ribak at Technion. One of the authors of the 2007 study, Kristian Franze of Cambridge University, was glad to see this work complement theirs. It suggests that light-coupling by Müller cells is a crucial event that contributes to vision as we know it, he said. What will Darwinists do with this new revelation? After all, reporter McAlpine showed that the backward-wired retina was listed by New Scientist in 2007 as one of evolutions greatest mistakes. She started out confessing that it looks wrong, but then had to admit that the strange, backwards structure of the vertebrate retina actually improves vision, according to this new study. From Ben on evillusion.net, 7/31/10 Someone once said “Man has learned even from his futile attempts to fathom the primary causes of the phenomena of nature, that his powers of comprehension are limited, and he will admit that to deny an effect because of his inability to elucidate its cause would be to forfeit his claims as an observing and reasoning being”. Steve, like you I enjoy reasoning and so I can’t help but question the fact that there are over 20 million species on this planet who have supposedly all originated from the same primitive cell (life form) and over billions of years of change, adaptations and mutations we are the only species who can observe and reason…love and hate…feel pleasure and inner pain…feel anger and jealousy…can choose to pray and ponder…have and develop faith and hope…feel empathy and compassion…look into the galaxies and the far reaches of the universe…can read and write…laugh and cry…choose to be mean or kind to others…can make informed judgements and decisions…can work an i pod…can write and perform music on instruments we have invented…can enjoy and understand an opera…can build a house or a high rise building…can fly to the moon…can solve mathematical problems or think laterally…can talk on electronic equipment around the globe…or play an xbox…drive a car…fly a plane…make animals from cloud shapes…clone a sheep…ferilise an embryo in a lab…kiss and make up…(the list is endless)…and lastly, believe in a belief system of how we came to be! What are the odds that we have evolved into this ‘special one of a kind species’ and no other species has even come close to us…what’s the evos answer to this simple but problematic observation? Your’e right when you say at the end of your you tube videos “there is more to it than evolution folks”! …The more we learn the less we know!
You see i always thought of nature like the very definition of balance. No matter how big forces are at work how they erode or damage each other in the process, the bigger picture does and will always show balance. The way life works however is striving against this natural order. We are talking about a system that has literally everything controlled and covered. No matter what small or big of a reaction we are talking about. Electric impulses that travel along the nerve system, chemical/hormone reactions, the very DNA… everything about it is defined and if only one little thing out of the billions of possibilities wont fit, no matter whether its the DNA or the absence of a specific component, the whole thing collapses. In my opinion mother nature thinks big. Whatever caused life to appear it was way beyond the everyday natural forces. I’m not the person to decide that this specific thing was a god, UFO, a sort of special energy or just a very special condition of natural forces, but one thing is sure. Our world has both a spiritual and a material side. Trying to prove that one of these sides is better, more true or stands above the other makes about as much sense as trying to prove that the number is better than the picture on a coin. Basically that’s why i like your vids, and that’s why i dislike people that are all nazi about either Darwinism or God (which ever). Anyways, keep up the work and always keep in mind when you get discouraged about how close minded people can get that everybody needs to believe in something to support their personality. The majority goes to either spirituality/religions or materialism/atheism depending on their needs. Only a very few seem to ever realise that these two forces are only seemingly the opposites of each other, because they create our world together. So, heads up and don’t mind when ppl will bash against your opinion cause they need to believe in their own truth. That’s the way things work. Copsweet from YouTube 8/18/10, commenting on the evolution of sexual procreation: Maybe,it started with a simple pleasure receptive spot on a cell wall,when other cells saw that cell having all the fun,they evolved 1 too. These cells were the 1st known masturbaters.As the habit grew,so did the size of pleasure receptor spots.When these spots were pressed against cells that didn’t have the spots,it was interpreted as selective pressure and evolved a pleasure receptive indentation. As the new behaviour intensified,and pleasure grew,the pleasure spots continued to enlarge–some more than others.It can be proven by speculation that these primitive wangs might have been precursors to the flagellum. Others however continued to grow and multiply,particularly now as it was so much fun. The remaining asexual cells thought the new behaviour inappropriate,and formed the 1st cell colony sexual harrasment group. Primitive wangs grew larger,vaginas grew deeper,until we see them as they are today all over the internet. Peer review anyone? I need the money. Dwilkes7 22010/08/23 at 2:01 am One of the things I find difficult to believe is why do people want to entrench themselves in DOGMATIC BELIEF when the current evidence doesn’t really “support” either side of the equation? Is it really hard to say that with the current FACTS, NOTHING can be nailed down to a certainty? What’s wrong with showing fossils without applying an interrelationship that can’t be PROVED? The ONLY way to obtain that evidence is to relate DNA one to the other and unless I’m wrong, fossils don’t have any. I love nothing better than to sit back and run scenarios through my head and ask what really happened. I know that there isn’t enough hard and fast evidence to say it happened “this way” and run with my own “Theory” but interesting things come to mind. I ask myself if I were going to “make” a lot of different species, how would I do it? I know how to program computersand have thought about writing a program that could produce various other programs more easily. I would try to write lines of code that could either be used or skipped depending on the application. If it were written well enough, it would save me from making other programs from scratch each time. What if I were going to design any animal I wanted, why not put enough instructions in the DNA to keep me from having to start from scratch each time. I could become an artist at making different designs by just activating certain sequences to differentiate cell placement and morphology. If a certain design of internal organ systems worked well, why not just change the shapes to work harmoniously with each other and form a balanced ecology that would take care of itself. I know some will criticize my thoughts, but they are just my fantasy that I play with for fun. I LOVE puzzles! My friends all know what a fanatic I am about solving puzzles so they continually give me riddles, hand eye type, and any other things they can find. They are rarely successful unless they give me a limited time to solve. This is the way I approach many of the problems I encounter in real life. At any rate I know from what you have written in your blog about EVO, that you enjoy the feeling of wonder from thinking about what the real process is like. Rob on 8/9/2010, this blog Hey Steve, How is my ‘silicone pen’ pal doing? Been moving house so super highway transmission not available. Did I mention moving sucks…Oh well?! Yes, I read your population article with great interest. What amazes me is that the exactness of science and the precision thinking of scientists from medical surgeons; to those splitting the atom; to biomoleclular engineers; to biochemical experimentation; to blood/molecular/cellular compositional studies; chromosomes; dna; biochemical and binary science; mathematicians; law of physics; pharmacology; etc etc all rely on specificity, critical and methodical, unequivocal, low or no risk rationale and reasoned suppositions. The only purported science that does not think that way is evolutionary science. I call it the science of looking ‘backwards’ and forward thinking is therefore NOT highly recommended. If I suggested to a biochemist that I could blow up a printing office and that all of the letters would fall down after the explosion and produce a comprehensive dictionary fully bound with all the letters and words and meanings in perfect alignment then according to the incomprehensible odds of this being able to occur I would be ridiculed and seen as the laughing stock of the scientific community. However, as a fellow ‘scientist’ who proffers a theory of how life came to be from one giant explosion which would produce several million living, breathing organisms with all their chemical elements perfectly aligned…BUT also producing only ONE species with high intelligence and ethics and a conscience…what are the incomprehensible odds??…then how come I am not ridiculed and considered the laughing stock of their community as well??? The scientists who regularly base their research and results on accuracy; precision; and exactness in undertaking experiments and observations within no or very low risk parameters…do however give great lattitude and credence to their fellow researchers who base their science on extremely high risk and low probability assumptions…why is that?…what a crazy scientific world we live in??!! Kudos to you Steve…keep questioning and reasoning…the standard of truth has many entrance portals and doors which can only be opened by serious questioning and pondering… and I for one appreciate the time and effort (and monetary investment) you give in the quest thereof! “I am still learning” – Michaelangelo gmh1206 9/5/2010 YT: And the temporal nature of a design doesn’t exclude a designer does it now? The eye surpasses any human made camera eg 10 billion to 1 contrast ratio, sensitive to a single photon, auto focus, cleaning, repairing, assembling and the clincher for me is that it is algorithmically encoded on a piece of material (DNA) weighing less than 6 picograms. Furthermore, a high bandwidth signal at 30 FPS and 150 megapixel res is encoded on 1 million low bandwidth nerves. Dewilkes7 on 2010/09/22 at 6:56 pm I know this is an old thread, I would like to point out a few things. Shrunk was pointing to Warfarin resistance in some rats as an example of evolution. I see this kind of argument all the time when talking to evolutionists. First of all, any “ADAPTATION” that leaves the animal, bacteria, insect, etc…, the same life form is NOT an example of evolution. The adaptation does NOT change the “animal” into something else, all it does is show resistance adaptation and nothing more. If the adaptation leaves, (for instance), the rat a rat is not now, nor will it be a bridge to a brand new species in the future. If you would know the rest of the story, it should show you how wrong you are. Warfarin has a half life of 40 hours. Rats eat several meals a day, thus there is a generous “overlap” between meals. All that is being said is that they have some Warfarin resistance, They are NOT Warfarin PROOF! All that is necessary to kill them, is to put out MORE food than the average block of Warfairn laced food. The other thing noted is that these “resistant” animals were most likely ALREADY present in the population. The resistance WAS NOT a NEW “instruction set” added to the DNA/RNA, it was already there, just as resistance to poison oak is already in the human genome. (I have a very high resistance to poison oak, I can rub it on my skin and not have any reaction to it at all). My brothers don’t have this resistance and are miserable because of it. I have 4 adult children who are still HUMAN and only one has the same resistance. If you do your math right, within a few generations the trait most likely be gone. I have met not 1 person in my life with this same trait (although I have not “tested” them all). Just by my own observation I would say it is very rare. If you want to know about the math, I refer you to Haldane’s Dilemma. I know how you EVOs love to point to papers refuting these things. Please read this: http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/articles_debates/haldane_rebuttal.htm before you answer, thank you. From Kent A. Perry , Jan 8, 2011 Here ya go Charlie This explains it to a tee From The Nebulous Hypothesis: A Study of the Philosophical and Historical Implications of Darwinian Theory © 1996 by James M. Foard “Evolutionists, like their shell artist counterparts at carnival booths, will manipulate the facts, frequently using misleading arguments to define evolution that only cloud over the real deficiencies of their case. One of their favorite techniques is to misuse or abuse our understanding of certain universal absolutes in their definition of evolution. A typical example would be when they state quite blithely that evolution is simply “change over time”. Well, nobody can argue that change definitely does take place over time. The earth spins on its axis and revolves around the sun, and this is certainly change over time. I walk or ride from my house to the store and back, and this is certainly change over time. I get up in the morning and go to sleep at night, and this is certainly change over time. The entire creation is an example of change over time, unless it were to be frozen in a permanent instant of time with no past, present or future. So yes, any reasonable person would have to admit that change indeed does occur over time. But does this really provide any evidence for evolution? After all, even for a creationist, the first six chapters of Genesis taken literally are an example of change over time. The literal creation and fall of man was change over time. The descendants of Adam and Eve populating the earth was change over time. The universal Flood of Noah in the Bible was change over time. The consummation of the age in the book of Revelation will be “change over time”. So change over time is a universal constant, even within a creationist model. This is nothing that the evolutionists can lay exclusive claim to. What we need to do is ask ourselves what is the extent of this change over time, and is there any factual data provided by the evolutionist’s that this “change over time” lends any credibility to their case? The evolutionist’s definition of change over time involves an unproven assumption, that bacteria became metazoa that changed into fish that changed into amphibians that changed into reptiles that changed into mammals that turned into humans. We have seen in previous chapters, and will see later on in this one, that this is an entire fantasy – no actual evidence has ever occurred to substantiate this claim. Darwin’s theory of evolution is change over time only in the same manner that “The Lord of the Rings” is change over time: They both are works of fiction. Evolution glorifies destruction, extinction, selfish pride and the trampling of the weak under the ongoing progress of the strong, which has born bitter fruit in the 20th century, and if it continues to be our official academic Weltanschauung will produce a horrific future for mankind in the new century. Evolutionists try to masquerade their fiction as science, but there is nothing scientific about it at all. Thus we have to be extremely watchful, as our Lord said, “Wise as serpents and harmless as doves” on order to be on our guard against the duplicitous arguments of men who have set themselves against the truth, who have rebelled against the Word of God and seek to lead others astray in their rebellion. Another amazing argument used by evolutionists, based mind you on the absolute lack of any kind of fossil evidence of evolution for proof of the evolutionary theory, would be Steven Jay Gould’s astounding concept of “punctuated equilibrium.” It is the theory that a bird can hatch from a lizard’s egg, like Cinderella’s mice turning into coachmen, and has also been called the “hopeful monster” theory by evolutionists. Actually Gould’s version is a bit slower than this, but essentially he is saying that evolution does not happen in a slow, gradual process, but in sudden spurts, and that is why there is not any fossil evidence of it having occurred. This shows the desperate lengths that evolutionists will go to bolster support for their theory, since punctuated equilibrium states that the lack of transitional fossil forms is still evidence for evolution! It is like the two headed coin used by con artists that always comes up heads: If evolutionists had fossil evidence for evolution, they could say “We have fossil evidence for evolution, therefore it occurred.” But because they have no fossil evidence for evolution, they say “We don’t have fossil evidence for evolution, therefore it occurred.” Since evolution must have occurred, if there’s no evidence of it, this is taken as evidence for evolution by evolutionists! This is one of the boldest, most bald-faced evolutionary charades ever conducted in the history of science, and the fact that it has become the subject of intense scrutiny in scientific papers over the past twenty-five years shows the utter bankruptcy of evolutionary theory! One has to wonder why Gould ever cooked up this theory in the first place and advance an argument so deficient in fact and logic. Perhaps to avoid the creationists’ principle argument: the scant evidence for evolution? There actually are a couple of possibilities. Perhaps Gould was beginning to realize that the evidence for evolution was so inadequate that the genie was going to pop out of the bottle sooner or later. Perhaps the lack of evidence for evolution had produced the same change of mind that other scientists had experienced when they converted from evolution to creationism, but Gould simply didn’t have the fortitude to come out and admit it. After all, no one would relish being an academic pariah, or of being some over-the-hill reactionary against the unquestioned dogma of evolution. After all, Gould’s career and reputation is staked on maintaining the legend of Charles Darwin and his theory on center stage. The other possibility is that Gould simply ignored the implications of the lack of evidence for evolution because he was too steeped in his beliefs to honestly evaluate the facts presented before his very eyes. This explanation has profound and sadly evocative tones of certain of the false beliefs during the middle ages which people clung to, despite new scientific discoveries that contradicted their beliefs, simply because they were swayed by the overpowering psychological effects of the herd instinct. As then, even today, despite their education and training, many academics are unable to divorce themselves from a mistaken scientific hypothesis that they were taught was true in the early days of their careers when their minds were impressionable by men whom they respected and to some degree adulated as nearly infallible. Thus from one generation to the next the evolution myth has been passed on by believing academics to students, who in turn become the next generation of academics, using the same flawed logic with unquestioning faith.” Oh and anyone suggesting how stupid we are for not knowing Darwins theory has changed, need not post such a *BLOCK BUSTER!* News event. We are well aware of it and the purported mountain of evidence they claim there is to support it., when examined critically, is nothing but a land fill of debunked hoax after hoax after hoax, a cornucopia of lies and a semantics database of cookie cutter copy paste quotes to ridicule their opposing interlocutors arguments, with extreme prejudice. They act out this behavior not unlike a religious zealot, behind a terminally self righteous attitude of supreme arrogance and foolish pride. Evolution will soon be kicked to the curb like the garbage it is and as part of the mountain of bullshit it has become. Count on it. The following is from Charlie, (03/09/2011). He believes in a Christian god. I go for an intelligence in the universe, a more generalized non-communicator type of entity. His discussion on the origin of logic is very interesting and thought provoking: I have enjoyed a number of debates now, with people that are adamantly convinced that the Theory of Evolution is a true and ‘intellectual’ explanation for the Origin of Man. That we are all somehow mindlessly created by Nature itself and that no Creator was necessary. It appears to me that the one thing that all of these die-hard Evolution proponents have in common is that they claim to be carrying the banner of Logic and Reason… that they are somehow upholding the integrity of Logic and Reason and that Logic and Reason justify that their position is superior. I find that to be dishonest or naive or both. When in fact, they have no choice but to abuse Logic- using it against itself in an obfuscated manner in order to hide the fact (perhaps even to themselves) that they are actually standing upon a foundation that is no more solid than a puff of smoke. Methodological Naturalism and Empirical Rationalism (MN and ER) are hailed consistently as the bedrock of all knowledge. They are no doubt quite useful for gaining knowledge of many things- especially in light of the marvels of modern technology. But MN and ER are *not* eligible toward making certain assertions. They are literally useless toward making logical conclusions about the origin of those things upon which they rely for their very own existence. One can never use a piece of evidence that RELIES UPON an assertion and then use it to provide PROOF FOR that assertion. To do so is called Begging the Question and is a logical fallacy that is widely documented and examined. Every argument FOR evolution relies upon the use of MN and ER (arguably- *ab*used) to essentially explain the origin of MN and ER. As you will no doubt observe, MN and ER depend wholly upon Logic and Reason. Without them, they simply cannot exist. Logic and Reason are the ‘bedrock’- but a false one for making authoritative conclusions about their own origins. For brevity sake, we’ll simply deal with the concept of Logic. Let me begin by clarifying terms. We must separate the Observation of Logic from the Existence of Logic. No doubt the Observation of Logic (Man’s philosophies and methodological techniques) did not come into existence before Man’s Consciousness. But it is hard to deny that the Existence of Logic (the structured order in which the universe operates) pre-existed Man and his Consciousness. There is no reason to deny that The Laws of Identity (Law of Non-Contradiction (LNC) and Law of the Excluded Middle (LEM)) were in operation and behaved as they do today well before Man gained Consciousness. It is a fair to conclude that even before Man’s Consciousness, the assertion ‘two atoms cannot reside in the exact same space and time’ was even then either True or False, but it was not Both (LEM). The idea that the universe suddenly began operating in a structured order when Man gained Consciousness is just as useless as imagining that the Universe itself came to be at that momentous event. To examine the logic for the existence of a Creator more honestly, one may logically assert the following claim: ‘A Creator Exists’. That claim is either True or it is False. It may considered Indeterminate… but that should require that a proper and HONEST examination of BOTH the True and the False branches should continue. To do anything otherwise is a breach of logic since it commences by arbitrarily choosing one branch without necessary proof. All further conclusions that rely upon that arbitrary decision- directly or indirectly- are compromised. Though one may still arrive at the correct conclusion by chance, they certainly would not be employing logic. ‘A Creator Exists’ is either True, or it is False, or it may be considered Indeterminate- in which case BOTH the True and the False MUST be contemplated honestly in order to arrive at a logical and rational conclusion. The Evolution proponent, however, tends to be either dishonest or naive about their evaluation of the ‘True’ branch. They create diminutive versions of a Creator (one that resides within Logic- within Reason- within Nature- within bounds that are not honest representations of an Infinite Absolute Creator as he may in fact be defined), or they argue about the illogical nature of such an Infinite Absolute Creator- while illogically and arbitrarily dismissing entirely the obvious limitations of a finite creature to understand such an Infinite Being. The evaluation is generally emotional and is based completely upon personal distaste or incredulity of such an Infinite Absolute Creator. They quickly satisfy themselves that the assertion ‘a Creator Exists’ need not be seriously contemplated- that it is effectively False, and then they proceed from there claiming that somehow they have used Logic to dismiss the necessity of a Creator. The trouble is plainly this. That they have arbitrarily chosen True or False without further independent proof. This is not a proper use of logic by any means. They have instead abused Logic and then proceed to uphold it and feel justified by it. They also run immediately into the following problem- which they struggle to hide with a variety of sophisticated tricks… That Logic is not self-created. It is not Logical (by definition) that anything that abides Logic- especially Logic itself- be self-referentially existent. Logic is not, in and of itself, able to conjure itself into existence- nor affirm its own existence or authority. Everything that resides within Logic must abide by the Laws of Logic- including Logic itself. The claim that ‘Logic is the reason for the existence of Logic’ is circular reasoning. No matter how many deceptive chain links are added to the circle of evidence to hide that nugget of nonsense- it still remains a circle. (Again- speaking specifically of Logic as the structured order of the universe upon which the Laws of Logic depend.) For that matter, Logic cannot be used to affirm or deny the existence of something upon which it depends for its own existence. For example, Logic itself cannot be used as a proof to deny that ‘Logic pre-existed Consciousness’ or that ‘Logic exists as the creation of a Creator’ when in fact the question of whether such a pre-Consciousness Creation of Logic occurred is the VERY SUBJECT at hand. To use Logic in such a manner commits a circular fallacy and is clearly a breach of logic. What then? Where must Logic come from? Why does the universe obey such a structured order? Certainly one cannot logically deny that Logic *just might* come from something outside of itself. Perhaps from Something that exists outside of the bounds of Logic and that has the power to call Logic- the structured order of the universe- and even the universe itself- into existence? Logically, that cannot be denied. It is a valid proposition. The simple truth of the matter is that any foundation that lays naively (dishonestly?) upon Logic and Logic alone as a reason for its own existence is just an example of dressed up Circular Reasoning. One that deals with definitions that specifically exclude that abuse of Logic. And those people that rely solely upon that foundation do so arbitrarily upon faith and faith alone. One can certainly accuse the Christian God of also being self-referentially existent. But that is His own definition. He is defined outside of all Creation and is thereby quite capable- again, by definition- of creating the structured order in the universe- and the universe itself. He is cohesive and complete. Admittedly, it is very difficult to stand in the gaze of such a Creator… But His description fits the occasion. To believe that He, Jesus, Father and Holy Spirit, is THAT Creator does undeniably require faith… But the existence of Some Creator is still a valid logical proposition. Denial of such a Creator is not a celebration of Logic, but is in fact an Abuse of Logic. Truly, such a Creator may simply be a necessary reality. A genuinely honest search can only commence from an admission that submits to the validity of that proposition and examines it seriously without personal bias. The Evolution proponents can have their brand of faith if they so desire. But they cannot keep pretending that the banner of Logic and Reason is theirs to loft up high. Challager, in response to Dane 04/11/11 You really think you have successfully undermined my whole argument don’t you? You just confirmed it. How do you observe something? Through hypothesizing about the cause and setting up experiments to determine if the effect is consistent with your hypothesis. How do you verify something? By performing experiments to determine causes and effects. How do you know something is testable? When you are able to set up experiments to observe and verify it. Also, Steve is so right! Evolutionauts only use the tenets of science that you just used to berate me with when it suits their purpose. He has repeatedly shown examples of speculative evolutionary hypotheses that can neither be observed nor verified nor tested. But Evonauts just totally ignore anything he says and push “peer-reviewed” papers in his face and think they have won the battle. The funny thing is when he uses those same peer reviewed papers to prove his own point LOL It’s like throwing a spear at someone who catches it and throws it right back at you. “Don’t forget [one] is also going to ask how an uncaused cause can even be. How does a thing be without having a cause?” How do you have an infinite set of causes? “Simply promoting it as thought construct does little good as that is nothing more internal perception of an external article…and that does not a reality make.” It’s called thinking. Someone had to have an idea before the first machine of the industrial revolution was invented. Someone has to have an idea before doing any experiment. Ideas are realities unrealized. Einstein was a mathematician. He came up with the Theory Of General Relativity through thinking about the processes involved. Are you going to say his ideas are “nothing more [than an] internal perception of an external article?” Stop relying on scientists to do the thinking for you and do some thinking of your own. Erin Carter wrote on 06/22/11 Bitterness can be blinding. And it comes through very clearly in many posts here. How can you continue to champion an unfounded, unproven, unsubstantiated theory? There’s not one spot of evidence. You don’t have to be a Creationist to reject Evolution. You don’t have to do that anymore than you have to like a Mustang to hate a Station Wagon. What sense does that make that to reject one thing you must automatically, simultaneously embrace another??? That’s a sad sentiment of bad science. That’s a big part of where Evolutionists lose their respectability. They act like children fighting for attention and when it’s lost, not just to something else but to that something that seems the strongest threat (i.e. the equally popular cheerleader running for prom queen) they lose all integrity in how they try to shift the debate. They begin to do and say things out of desperation. And they forget what good science is. Good science is not forming an idea and then following clues infinitely in every direction hoping one will give you evidence but following WHATEVER clues you have that lead to the TRUTH, WHATEVER it may be. Science and Truth go hand in hand and NO ONE should be afraid of either.
ozredneck22 wrote on YouTube, 11/25/11
As Ian Juby says “Abiogenesis is easy…, first you purchase a Expedite Automated DNA/RNA Synthesizer from Applied Biosystems (Forster City, CA) for $35,295, take Isolated E.Coli genomic DNA at $50.00/oz. This is then used to synthesize the Oligonucleotides. Histidine-tagged T7 RNA polymerase is purified from E.Coli strain BL21 containing plasmid pBH161 provided by William McAllister State University of New York Or you purchase the Oligonucleotides from Integrated DNA Technologies. So there you have it, no intelligence required, all natural processes as found in the early earth…right? The look on evolutionists faces when you tell them it can’t happen naturally……..PRICELESS….…… for everything else there’s MASTERCARD
- Al Barrs wrote on 12/2/11
- How I personally view Creation and Evolution: Al BarrsBoth Creationism and Evolutionism are based on FAITH. Both are, in their own ways, types of religions. Creationists have put the evidence they have faith in on the line in the form of their Bibles. Darwinians, on the other hand, devote much of their time to attacking the Creationist’s evidence…right or wrong, claiming it is evidence of evolution if they can prove Creationists wrong. Creationists on the other hand attack Darwinists’ definition of evolution…again right or wrong, claiming it is evidence of creation if they can prove Evolution wrong.What it all comes down to is the definitions of “evolution”. I say use the term definition in its plural form…definitions. Therein lays the conflict and difference. Creationists and Evolutionists use two different definitions of “evolution”.On the one hand Darwinians define “evolution” as the changing of one life form, sometimes called “species”, into other totally different life forms or species.On the other hand Creationists define “evolution” as the changing of one life form, sometime called “species” into a modified form of itself or its own life form or “species”.Creationists challenge Darwinians to prove, with concrete fossil evidence, their faith that one species evolved into another species with true transitional hybrid-species. The established Darwinians claim many transitional fossils, but have been unable to absolutely link two species with any claimed transitional species. Some established Darwinians have claimed transitional species but have failed to prove that their transitional species is not either a separate species or a changed existing species.Meanwhile Darwinians continue the search and often make claims that they have found a true transitional species, such as the recent small lemur, monkey like, fossil that was claimed to be the Modern Human transitional species, but which was later proven to not be the case.I don’t claim to have the answer either. I do however not accept the idea that all life forms on Earth radiated out from a hot chemical soup on Earth into the millions of life forms today. I do question both Creationists and Darwinians with one question…Why is the Modern Human life form or species millions of years more advanced intellectually and technically than any of the other millions of life forms on Earth?My position is that either Modern Humans were the first life form on Earth, which I don’t believe because there would have been no food to sustain them. Or, Modern Humans appeared on Earth millions and perhaps billions of years after the other life forms on Earth appeared.I am also conflicted about who “God” as we understand him today was and is. Creationists don’t adequately define who God was and is nor from where he came from and resides today. A lingering question is who is “God”, where did he originate if we are in his image, which Biblical scripture claims. Or, is our “God” of today the “gods” of our ancient ancestors? Is “God” or the ancient’s gods extraterrestrials? Obviously they are extraterrestrial because neither He nor they exist on Earth today and Biblical reference claims they went up into heaven. I only make these statements and ask these questions because that is where we Modern Humans must begin and try to answer logically for the puzzle of life to fit together.The only hypothesis that fits together, in my untrained view, is that Modern Humans are special in some way and appeared suddenly on Earth some 40,000 to 50,000 years ago fully formed and different in physique and technology than any other life form on Earth. How did Modern Humans suddenly appear on Earth, fully formed just a scant 25,000 to 30,000 years before Neanderthals disappeared from the Earth, if Modern Humans (Cro-Magnon or Us) were not put here on Earth (colonized) in some way by either God’s creation or colonized by extraterrestrials that we have come to refer to as “God”. This is the only logical explanation that puts the puzzle Earth life forms together.
Evolution of life forms, or species, into new and vastly different species will remain an unproven Darwinian THEORY… We Modern Humans must think outside of the box and focus on the question rather than the existing answers if we are to ever learn who we are and how we come to be the dominant life form or species on Earth… There is much we don’t know today…
Another fascinating comment from the ever inquisitive Al Barrs, 12/11/11
- Here is what the Smithsonian “experts” had to say about my questions… Al Barrs sent a message using the contact form athttp://humanorigins.si.edu/contact.Sent: Sunday, August 21, 2011 10:46 AMTo: Human OriginsSubject: [Ask a question] DNA linkage of hominoids? Al Barrs sent a message using the contact form athttp://humanorigins.si.edu/contact. Will you please supply your evidence of DNA lineage of the progressive line of hominoids you depict on your http://humanorigins.si.edu Website? Thank you, Al Barrs From: email@example.com [firstname.lastname@example.org]Thank you for your email and your interest in the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program! Your questions are important to us, and we’ll do our best to reply as soon as possible if we are able to answer your question. Our response time can range from a few days to a few weeks depending on the nature of your question and the volume of questions we are currently answering. Regards, The Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program Hello Mr. Barrs, Thank you for your email, and your interest in the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program. Most of the evidence for the human family tree that we have depicted on our website (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/human-family-tree) comes from fossil evidence, as DNA has only been extracted from fossils of two early human species (so far). One of those species is the Neanderthal, and you can read more about the DNA evidence from Neanderthal fossils here: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals. But, “fossil evidence” is no evidence at all. Fossil evidence only shows similarity between the specimens, not evidence they were related along any connecting lineage. Only DNA would be “evidence” and “proof”. –Al Barrs Recently, DNA was extracted from a fossil “pinky bone” of a yet unnamed species of early human, called “Denisovans” after the cave in Siberia where the “pinky bone” was found. You can read more about that on this link to a National Geographic story: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101222-new-human-species-dna-nature-science-evolution-fossil-finger/ and a Nature News story: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101222/full/4681012a.html. The genetic evidence from both of these fossil species strongly supports the family tree on our Website. sidenote: What does “strongly supports” prove? Nothing! –Al Barrs Warm Regards, The Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program
- From: Al BarrsDate: THR OCT 30th Thanks for responding to my request for evidence that Modern Humans are related to the list of hominids found in Africa. I have a question about your reply that your “evidence comes from fossil evidence”. It appears to me that fossils only supports similarity evidence, not hard evidence that there is a connection between ancient African hominids or primates and Modern Humans. The fact that ancient hominids had similar bone structure to Modern Humans does not, in my opinion, make ancient African hominids related to Modern Humans…again it is only speculation. Speculation would not be sufficient evidence to win a case in court. Here is my problem: 1) Recent DNA tests of Neanderthal proves that Neanderthal do not match Modern Human DNA. Therefore, Neanderthal may have been related to the list of African hominids found with similar body structure but not Modern Humans. Neanderthal also had similar body structure but is not DNA and proves nothing towards a genetic link to Modern Humans; and 2) Recently I read an article that stated that ancient hominids ate wild grain because scientists had found evidence in an ancient hominid’s teeth. The digestive system of Modern Humans was and is unable to digest wild grains. That is why wild plants were hybridized. Why bother to hybridize wild grains and other plants if Modern Humans could eat the wild grain without it being hybridized? One must conclude that these ancient hominids or primates, who ate wild grains, were members of another species like the ancient hominids and primates found in Africa, themselves wild animals like apes and monkeys, not Modern Humans. Finally, without DNA there is no conclusive evidence that Modern Humans were related to any of the Great Ape lineage; and finally 3) Why is Modern Humans alone on earth so much more advanced intellectually and technically while all other life forms on earth are millions of years behind in their “evolutionary” intelligence and technological development? This makes no sense if Modern Humans are an integral member of all life forms on Earth. If Modern Humans branched from Chimpanzees some six million years ago, it means Chimps are much older than Modern Humans, so why are Chimps still chimps using the same survival skills they used millions of years ago and Modern Human have faired much better? Thanks you for taking the time to discuss this troubling problem of evidence and speculation. I’ll look forward to hearing from you.
- Sincerely, Al Barrsalbarrs@wfeca.net++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
- Emessage from the Smithsonian about DNA linkage to hominids From: Human Origins Dear Mr. Barrs, We appreciate your questions and interest in the science of human origins. It is valuable to ask these types of questions as science, itself, is driven by inquiry. You raise a few different issues which we hope we can address for you. Regarding genetics, it is agreed among all geneticists that similarity in DNA reflects evolutionary relationship. (Emphasis added by Al Barrs) COMMENT by Al Barrs: Your start off your response using the very word that I claim any connection of we Modern Humans to ancient hominids, including Neanderthal, is nothing more than scientific speculation or as you put it “similarity in DNA”. All living forms have similarities and DNA is just one of them, but that doesn’t mean that “similarity in DNA” means that we are of that group of living forms. What you are saying is that all living forms have DNA therefore all living forms are directly related. That is not proof. That is speculation without facts, proof or evidence. My position is, until there are hard facts to replace speculation of similarity there is no direct connection, DNA or otherwise. There is no other way to view life in any form than genetically! Speculation is simply jumping to conclusions without concrete irrefutable evidentiary proof. And, that there is none… This is a prediction of evolutionary science which has been confirmed by the study of DNA over the last half century. We see this conclusion reflected in studies of families — we can identify relationship between parents and siblings, for example, using DNA analysis. The understanding of relationship based on genetics is the foundation of many large research endeavors, such as the Genographic Project (https://genographic.nationalgeographic.com/genographic/index.html). Studies of the human genome have compared the genetic sequences of DNA in modern humans to many other living organisms, including our closest living relative, the modern chimpanzee. The chimpanzee genome has also been closely studied, which is how we are able to draw conclusions about our relatedness to chimpanzees. In addition, we are able to compare modern human DNA to the DNA recovered from extinct hominins, such as the Neandertals. Though DNA is not typically recoverable from fossils, this process is dependent on the preservation environment and permineralization of the specimens, and Neandertal remains have been discovered in environments conducive to DNA preservation. Just in the last couple weeks, Carl Zimmer wrote a wonderful post for Discovery that summarizes the information we can obtain from ancient DNA and explains in much more detail the information about which you are interested regarding the relationship between Neandertals and Homo sapiens (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/loom/2011/11/14/neanderthal-neuroscience/). There is also excellent information on the Berkeley Understanding Evolution website under the heading “Making sense of ancient hominin DNA” (http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100501_xwoman). COMMENT by Al Barrs: How can one make sense of ancient hominid DNA when there is no ancient DNA to make sense of? The oldest DNA found todate that I have heard about was Neanderthal and it proved that Neanderthals and we Modern Humans were not related. That DNA comparisons is more compelling evidence than trying to make sense of something that does not exist, for example the Tooth Ferry, Santa Clause, etc. Please also visit our webpage for more information about ancient DNA and Neandertals (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals). Regarding your questions about diet and cooking, we have some information on our Website about cooking and hominin diets (scroll down the page): http://humanorigins.si.edu/human-characteristics/tools-food. In addition, you will probably be interested in (and may have been referring to in your email) the work of Dr. Amanda Henry and colleagues who have explored the use of cooking by Neandertals for transforming plant foods into more easily digestible foods (http://www.pnas.org/content/108/2/486.short). The earliest Homo sapiens would also have used cooking as a way to process foods, in addition to crushing and grinding. We know the advent of agriculture dates long after the origin of our species, Homo sapiens. Finally, we will draw your attention to research documenting the amazing array of intelligence in non-humans, such as the great apes and dolphins. For example, great apes, humans and dolphins are the only creatures who have so far documented the cognitive abilities associated with recognizing oneself in a mirror (see: http://www.pnas.org/content/98/10/5937.abstract?sid=ce623e06-fbd5-46cc-8257-8318468e2708 ). Cetaceans, up until about 2 million years ago, had the largest brain size-body size ratio of any creatures on the planet (i.e., until they were surpassed by hominins), which is sometimes used as a proxy for intelligence. Intelligence, as is the case with so many other qualities, has been shown to be an adaptation to the demands of a specific environment or niche, as well as a result of other evolutionary mechanisms. Of course, how intelligence is quantified and compared within groups or species needs to be considered. But, evidence from evolutionary neuroscience teaches us that the evolution of intelligence in humans and our ancestors is tied to rearrangements and expansions of specific networks in and regions of the brain, some of which can be documented by studying endocasts (casts of the inside of the brain case of extinct species). Understanding and accepting this, in no way, of course, detracts from the remarkable advances humans have made or are capable of compared to other living creatures — in fact, each advance in our study of brain evolution makes the evolution of humans all that more fascinating. For more information about human evolution, please visit our website (http://humanorigins.si.edu) or search some of the many informative sites available via the internet. Many of them are listed in a blog post we recommend: http://paleophile.wordpress.com/2011/05/04/human-evolution-education-resources/ Thank you for your inquiries. We hope you found this information useful. Warm regards, The Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program For more information about human origins: Website: http://humanorigins.si.edu Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/humanorigins Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/smithsonian.humanorigins sidenote: By Al Barrs: Nowhere in your response have you given your proof or any evidence in regard to my original question. I can only conclude that you have none and prefer instead to continue the long established practice that we have faith in your speculation and guesses. I only have faith in hard evidence and proof as it would prevail in a court of law… ________________________________ From: Al Barrs [email@example.com] Thanks for responding to my request for evidence that Modern Humans are related to the list of hominids found in Africa. I have a question about your reply that your “evidence comes from fossil evidence”. It appears to me that fossils only support similarity evidence, not hard defensible evidence that there is a connection between ancient African hominids or primates and Modern Humans. The fact that ancient hominids had similar bone structure to Modern Humans does not, in my opinion, make ancient African hominids related to Modern Humans… again it is only speculation and guesswork. Speculation would not be sufficient evidence to win a case in court. Here is my problem: 1) Recent DNA tests of Neanderthal proves that Neanderthal do not match Modern Human DNA. Therefore, Neanderthal may have been related to the list of African hominids found with similar body structure but not Modern Humans. Neanderthal also had similar body structure but is not DNA and proves nothing towards a genetic link to Modern Humans; and 2) Recently I read an article that stated that ancient hominids ate wild grain because scientists had found evidence in an ancient hominid’s teeth. The digestive system of Modern Humans was and is unable to digest wild grains. That is why wild plants were hybridized. Why bother to hybridize wild grains and other plants if Modern Humans could eat the wild grain without it being hybridized? One must conclude that these ancient hominids or primates, who ate wild grains, were members of another species like the ancient hominids and primates found in Africa, themselves wild animals like apes and monkeys, not Modern Humans. Finally, without DNA there is no conclusive evidence that Modern Humans were related to any of the Great Ape lineage; and finally 3) Why is Modern Humans alone on earth so much more advanced intellectually and technically while all other life forms on earth are millions of years behind in their intelligence and technological development? This makes no sense if Modern Humans are an integral member of all life forms on Earth. Thanks you for taking the time to discuss this troubling problem of evidence and speculation. I’ll look forward to hearing from you. Sincerely, Al Barrs firstname.lastname@example.org Hello Mr. Barrs, Thank you for your email, and your interest in the Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program. Most of the evidence for the human family tree that we have depicted on our website (http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/species/human-family-tree) comes from fossil evidence, as DNA has only been extracted from fossils of two early human species (so far). One of those species is the Neanderthal, and you can read more about the DNA evidence from Neanderthal fossils here: http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/genetics/ancient-dna-and-neanderthals. Recently, DNA was extracted from a fossil pinky bone of a yet unnamed species of early human, called “Denisovans” after the cave in Siberia where the pinky bone was found. You can read more about that on this link to a National Geographic story: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/12/101222-new-human-species-dna-nature-science-evolution-fossil-finger/ and a Nature News story: http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101222/full/4681012a.html. The genetic evidence from both of these fossil species strongly supports the family tree on our website. Warm Regards, The Smithsonian’s Human Origins Program sidenote: Al Barrs: At this point I stopped conversing because the discussion was going nowhere…
- ian9toes Jan. 18, 2012
- Great videos mate. I liken eye evolution to that of a car motor. Would anyone believe that sloppy workers making random errors while making steam engines could “over a long period of time” end up with an internal combustion engine. Or what about dodgy factory workers making video players “over a long period of time” producing a DVD player. While simultaneously dodgy video tape manufacturers produce DVD discs which are compatible with the DVD player. That is actually more likely than evolution.
Al Barrs contributes again.Plants and Animal Hybridization or DomesticationMany years ago, after reading the histories of all of the South American, Central American and North America’s first Native American nations, I commented to my young wife that it appeared to me after studying all the ancient American natives that mankind is regressing, at least in technological know how and ability, not progressing. She asked, “Why do you say that”? My comment was, “There are things those ancient Americans did that we can’t possibly duplicate today”.That hooked me. The only void in my visions was I had no idea what or how that had and was occurring. All that I knew was that we humans are less capable today than were humans in the beginning.After reading three of your books on that very subject I believe I now understand, after many years of continued reading, research and thought, what happened to cause human regression on planet Earth.It makes perfect sense to me, and more than that, it fits the evidence that there was an ancient build up of technological knowledge and skill and the knowledge and skill was lost or severely depressed. Whether or not the basic technical knowledge and skill was given to mankind by God, extraterrestrials, or humans themselves discovered it I can’t say for certain, but I do lean toward creation by God more than extraterrestrials or humans themselves. But, I believe it has to be one of the three…and after all God was and is an extraterrestrials.My vision, after reading you books, is that mankind was placed, colonized or occurred here on earth along with his hybridized (domesticate) plants and animals which was much different than all other life forms on earth, including animals and plants. I believe the markedly difference in Modern Humans and their hybridized plants and animals was and is different today because Modern Humans and their hybridized food sources occurred at a much different time than did all other life forms on Earth.Look around. Nothing else on Earth even comes close to the markedly more advanced Modern Human and his domesticated food plants and animals.Recently I read an article in a science magazine that an ‘establishment’ scientist had discovered that “archaic humans did not only eat meat but ate wild grain because he had found traces of archaic wild grains in the teeth of an ancient human skull”. My reaction to that was immediate. Was the specimen really a member of the Modern Human race? I doubt it. I wrote the author and he never replied to my challenge. My comment to him was that Modern Humans can not, to my and many scientist’s knowledge, digest the hard small wild grains of which he described, but only unrelated bipedal animals like the many similar bipedals that establishment scientist claim to be Modern Human’s ancestors could digest those ancient wild grains. Does that ability to digest wild grains separate Modern Humans from archaic bipedal animals that looked similar to us humans as some bipedals today? However, bipedals today are as they were millions of years ago.So, we have two separate categories of animal and plant life forms on Earth. Domesticated plants and animals for human consumption occurred so many years ago that modern humans could not have hybridized them himself. Hybridization, even using the simplest method of trait selection by farmers or herdsmen, takes generations after generations of selecting, propagation, planting, cultivating and harvesting. Only by using scientific gene splicing can that timeline be reduced but it take highly educated and trained specialists, not hunter gatherers turned farmers or herdsmen who had been hunter gatherers only a few years or at best a few generations earlier. In the first place why would a long generations line of hunter gatherers even come up with the idea to hybridize plants and animals?Excerpt from Lloyd Pye’s book… Lloyd Pye now lives just south of my farm in Panama City, Florida. He and I have had any number of conversations about many of the topics he and you research and write on. I don’t know if you know him or not but his works are interesting but very speculative. He is a believer in exterasterrial involvement in human history. Lloyd says the following about hybridized animals and plants, including Modern Humans and I tend to agree with much of what he says.It is interesting in that the hybridization or domestication of animals and plants could have occurred at the period before the flood which you write was a highly technological era in human development. What Lloyd has to say about hybridized animals and plants fit into your scenario of human development.“There are two basic forms of plants and animals: Wild and domesticated. The wild ones far outnumber the domesticated ones, which may explain why vastly more research is done on the wild forms. But it could just as easily be that (establishment) scientists shy away from the domesticated ones because the things they find when examining them are so far outside the accepted evolutionary paradigm.Domesticated/Hybridized Plants Nearly all domesticated plants are believed to have appeared between 10,000 and 5,000 years ago, with different groups coming to different parts of the world at different times. Initially, in the so-called “Fertile Crescent” of modern Iraq, Syria and Lebanon came wheat, barley and legumes, among others. Later on, in the Far East, came wheat, millet, rice and yams. Later still, in the New World, came maize (corn), peppers, beans, squash, tomatoes and potatoes. Many have “wild” predecessors that were apparently a starting point for the domesticated variety, but others—like many common vegetables— have no obvious precursors. So, from where did they come to Earth? But for those that do, such as wild grasses, grains and cereals, how they turned into wheat, barley, millet, rice, etc., is a profound mystery. No botanist can conclusively explain how wild plants gave rise to domesticated ones. The emphasis there is on “conclusively.” Botanists have no trouble hypothesizing elaborate scenarios in which Neolithic (New Stone Age hunter gatherers) ‘farmers’ somehow figured out how to hybridize wild grasses and grains and cereals, not unlike Gregor Mendel, when he cross-bred pea plants, to figure out the mechanics of genetic inheritance. It all sounds so simple and so logical almost no one outside (establishment) scientific circles ever examines it closely. Gregor Mendel never bred his pea plants to be anything other than pea plants. He created short ones, tall ones, and different colored ones, but they were always pea plants that produced peas. (Pea plants are a domesticated species, too, but that is irrelevant to the point to be made here.) On the other hand, those Stone Age hunter gatherers turned farmers who were fresh out of their caves and only just beginning to turn soil for the first time (as the “official establishment” scenario goes), somehow managed to transform the wild grasses, grains and cereals growing around them into their domesticated “cousins.” Is that possible? Only through a course in miracles could it occur. Actually, it requires countless miracles within two large categories of miracles. The first was that the wild grasses and grains and cereals were useless to humans. The seeds and grains were maddeningly small, like pepper flakes or salt crystals, which put them beyond the grasping and handling capacity of human fingers. They were also hard, like tiny nutshells, making it impossible to convert them to anything edible. Lastly, their chemistry was suited to nourishing animals, not humans. So, wild varieties were entirely too small, entirely too tough and nutritionally inappropriate for human consumption. They needed to be greatly expanded in size, greatly softened in texture and overhauled at the molecular level, which would be an imposing challenge for modern botanists, much less Neolithic farmers 5000 years ago. Despite the seeming impossibility of meeting those daunting objectives, modern botanists are confident the first sodbusters had all they needed to do it: Time and patience. Over hundreds of generations of selective crossbreeding, they consciously directed the genetic transformation of the few dozen that would turn out to be most useful to humans. And how did they do it? By the astounding feat of doubling, tripling and quadrupling the number of chromosomes in the wild varieties! In a few cases they did better than that. Domestic wheat and oats were elevated from an ancestor with 7 chromosomes to their current 42, expansion by a factor of six. Sugar cane expanded from a 10-chromosome ancestor to the 80-chromosome monster it is today, a factor of eight. The chromosomes of others, like bananas and apples, only multiplied by factors of two or three, while peanuts, potatoes, tobacco and cotton, among others, expanded by factors of four. This is not as astounding as it sounds because many wild flowering plants and trees have multiple chromosome sets. But that brings up what Charles Darwin himself called the “abominable mystery” of flowering plants. The first ones appear in the fossil record between 150 and 130 million years ago, primed to multiply into over 200,000 known species. But no one can explain their presence because there is no connective link to any form of plants that preceded them. It is as if….dare I say it? …they were brought to Earth by something akin to You-Know-What (extraterrestrials). If so, then it could well be they were delivered with a built-in capacity to develop multiple chromosome sets, and somehow beyond all probability our Neolithic forebears cracked the codes for the ones most advantageous to humans. However the codes were cracked, the great expansion of genetic material in each cell of the domestic varieties caused them to grow much larger than their wild ancestors. As they grew, their seeds and grains became large enough to be easily seen, picked up, and manipulated by human fingers. Simultaneously, the seeds and grains softened to a degree where they could be milled, cooked and consumed. And at the same time, their cellular chemistry was altered enough to begin providing nourishment to humans who ate them. The only word that remotely equates with that achievement is: MIRACLE! Of course, “miracle” implies there was actually a chance that such complex manipulations of nature could be carried out by primitive yeomen farmers in eight geographical regions over 5,000 years. This strains credulity because in each case in each region someone had to actually look at a wild progenitor and imagine what it could become, or should become, or would become. Then they had to somehow insure that their vision would be carried forward through countless generations that had to remain committed to planting, harvesting, culling and crossbreeding wild plants that put no food on their tables during their lifetimes, but which might feed their descendants in some remotely distant future generation. You think? It is difficult to try to concoct a more unlikely—even absurd—scenario, yet to modern-day ‘establishment’ botanists it is a gospel they believe with a fervor that puts many “six day” Creationists to shame. Why, because to confront its towering absurdity would force them to turn to You-Know-What for a more logical and plausible explanation. To domesticate a wild plant without using artificial (i.e. genetic) manipulation, it must be modified by directed crossbreeding, which is only possible through the efforts of humans, exterasterrial or God. So the equation is simple. First, wild ancestors for many (but not all) domestic plants do seem apparent. Second, most domesticated versions did appear from 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. Third, the humans alive at that time were believed to be primitive barbarians, but were they…really? Fourth, in the past 5,000 years no plants have been domesticated that are nearly as valuable as the dozens that were “created” by the earliest hunter gatherers turned farmers all around the world. Put an equal sign after those four factors and it definitely does not add up to any kind of Darwinian model. Or were humans more advanced technologically 5000 years ago than we are today and had the education and training to manipulate genes in animals and plants. Were Modern Humans hybridized animals too? Were humans the first hybridized animals on Earth? The establishment botanists know they have a serious problem here, but all they can suggest is that it simply had to have occurred by natural means because no other intervention—by God or You-Know-What—can be considered under any circumstances. But do we have to believe them? That unwavering stance is maintained by all establishment scientists, not just establishment botanists, to exclude overwhelming evidence such as the fact that in 1837 the Botanical Garden BIN RAS in St. Petersburg, Russia, began concerted attempts to cultivate wild rye into a new form of domestication. They are still trying today because their rye has lost none of its wild traits, especially the fragility of its stalk and its small grain. Therein lays the most embarrassing conundrum establishment botanist’s face. To domesticate a wild grass like rye, or any wild grain or cereal (which was supposedly done time and again by our Neolithic forebears…), two imposing hurdles must be cleared. These are the problems of rachises and glumes, which I discuss in my book, “Everything You Know Is Wrong—Book One: Human Origins” (pgs. 283-285) by Lloyd Pye. Glumes are botany’s name for husks, the thin covers of seeds and grains that must be removed before humans can digest them. Rachises are the tiny stems that attach seeds and grains to their stalks. While growing, glumes and rachises are strong and durable so rain won’t knock the seeds and grains off their stalks before they mature. At maturity they become so brittle that a breeze will shatter them and release their cargo to fall on the ground in preparation for next crops propagate. Such a high degree of brittleness makes it almost impossible to harvest wild plants because every grain or seed would be knocked loose during the harvesting process. So in addition to enlarging and softening and nutritionally altering the seeds and grains of dozens of wild plants, the earliest farmers had to also figure out how to finely adjust the brittleness of every plant’s glumes and rachises. That adjustment was of extremely daunting complexity, perhaps more complex than the transformational process itself. The rachises had to be toughened enough to hold seeds and grains to their stalks during harvesting, yet remain brittle enough to be easily collected by human effort during what has come to be known as “threshing.” Likewise, the glumes had to be made tough enough to withstand harvesting after full ripeness was achieved, yet still be brittle enough to shatter during the threshing process. And—here’s the kicker—each wild plant’s glumes and rachises required completely different degrees of adjustment, and the final amount of each adjustment had to be perfectly precise! In short, there is not a snowball’s chance in hell that this happened as ‘establishment’ botanist claim it occurred. Domestication/Hybridization of Animals As with plants, animal domestication followed a pattern of development that extended 10,000 to 5,000 years ago. It probably also started in the Fertile Crescent, with the “big four” of cattle, sheep, goats and pigs, among others. Later, in the Far East, came ducks, chickens and water buffalo, among others. Later still, in the New World came llamas and vicuna. This process was not simplified by expanding the number of chromosomes. All animals—wild and domesticated—are diploid, which means they have two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent. The number of chromosomes varies as widely as in plants (humans have 46), but there are always only two sets (humans have 23 in each). The only “tools” available to Neolithic herdsmen were those available to farming kinsmen: Time and patience. By the same crossbreeding techniques apparently utilized by farmers, wild animals were selectively bred for generation after generation until enough gradual modifications accumulated to create domesticated versions of wild ancestors. As with plants, this process required anywhere from hundreds to thousands of years in each case, and was also accomplished dozens of times in widely separated areas around the globe. Once again, we face the problem of trying to imagine those first herdsmen with enough vision to imagine a “final model,” to start the breeding process during their own lifetimes, and to have it carried out over centuries until the final model was achieved. This was much trickier than simply figuring out which animals had a strong pack or herding instinct that would eventually allow humans to take over as “leaders” of the herd or pack. For example, it took serious cajones to decide to bring a wolf cub into a campsite with the intention of teaching it to kill and eat selectively, and to earn its keep by barking at intruders (adult wolves rarely bark). And who could look at the massive, fearsome, ill-tempered aurochs and visualize a much smaller, much more amiable cow? Even if somebody could have visualized it, why would they because there was plenty of heard animals to hunt, how could they have hoped to accomplish it? An aurochs calf (or a wolf cub for that matter) carefully and lovingly raised by human “parents” would still grow up to be a full-bodied adult with hard-wired adult instincts. However it was done, it wasn’t by crossbreeding. Entire suites of genes must be modified to change the physical characteristics of animals. (In an interesting counterpoint to wild and domesticated plants, domesticated animals are usually smaller than their wild progenitors). But with animals something more…something ineffable…must be changed to alter their basic natures from wild to docile. To accomplish it remains beyond modern abilities, so attributing such capacity to Neolithic humans is an insult to Modern Human intelligence. All examples of plant and animal “domestication” are incredible in their own right, but perhaps the most incredible is the cheetah. There is no question it was one of the first tamed animals, with a history stretching back to early Egypt, India and China. As with all such examples, it could only have been created through selective breeding by Neolithic hunters, gatherers, or early farmers. One of those three must get the credit. (Wait, maybe it was domesticated by technically advances humans of pre-flood Earth.) The cheetah is the most easily tamed and trained of all the big cats. No reports are on record of a cheetah killing a human. It seems specifically created for high speeds, with an aerodynamically designed head and body. Its skeleton is lighter than other big cats; its legs are long and slim, like the legs of a greyhound. Its heart, lungs, kidneys and nasal passages are enlarged, allowing its breathing to jump from 60 breaths per minute at rest to 150 bpm during a chase. Its top speed is 70 miles per hour while a thoroughbred horse tops out at around 38 mph. Nothing on a savanna can outrun it. It can be outlasted, but not outrun. Cheetahs are unique because they combine physical traits of two distinctly different animal families: Dogs and cats. They belong to the family of cats, but they look like long-legged dogs. They sit and hunt like dogs. They can only partially retract their claws, like dogs instead of cats. Their paws are thick and hard like dogs. They contract diseases that only dogs suffer from. The light-colored fur on their body is like the fur of a shorthaired dog. However, to climb trees they use the first claw on their front paws in the same way that cats do. In addition to their “dog only” diseases they also get “cat only” diseases too. And the black spots on their bodies are, inexplicably, the texture of cat’s fur. There is something even more inexplicable about cheetahs. Genetic tests have been done on them and the surprising result was that in the 50 specimens tested, they were all—every one—genetically identical with all the others! Did you get that? Genetically identical… This means the skin or internal organs of any of the thousands of cheetahs in the world could be switched with the organs of any other cheetah and not be rejected. The only other place such physical homogeneity is seen is in rats and other animals that have been genetically altered in labs…NEVER IN NATURE. Cue the music from “The Twilight Zone”…. Cheetahs stand apart, of course, but all domesticated animals have traits that are not explainable in terms that stand up to rigorous scientific scrutiny. Rather than deal with the embarrassment of confronting such issues, scientists studiously ignore them and, as with the mysteries of domesticated plants, explain them away as best they can. For the cheetah, they insist it simply can not be some kind of weird genetic hybrid between cats and dogs, even though the evidence points squarely in that direction. And why? Because that, too, would move cheetahs into the forbidden zone occupied by You-Know-What. The problem of the cheetahs’ genetic uniformity is explained by ‘establishment’ scientists as something now known as the “bottleneck effect.” What it presumes is that the wild cheetah population—which must have been as genetically diverse as its long history indicates—at some recent point in time went into a very steep population decline that left only a few breeding pairs alive. From that decimation until now they have all shared the same restricted gene pool. Unfortunately, there is no record of any extinction events that would selectively remove cheetahs and leave every other big cat to develop its expected genetic variation. So for as unlikely as it seems, the “bottleneck” theory is accepted as another establishment scientific gospel. Here it is appropriate to remind scientists of Carl Sagan’s famous riposte when dealing with their reviled pseudoscience: “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” It seems apparent that Sagan learned that process in-house. It also leads us, finally, to a discussion of Modern Humans, who are so genetically recent that we, too, have been forced into one of those “bottleneck effects” that attempt to explain away the cheetah. Like all plants and animals, whether wild or domesticated, humans are supposed to be the products of slight, gradual improvements to countless generations spawned by vastly more primitive forebears. This was firmly believed by all establishment scientists in the 1980’s, when a group of geneticists decided to try to establish a more accurate date for when humans and chimps supposedly split from their presumed common ancestor. Paleontologists used fossilized bones to establish a timeline that indicated the split came between five and eight million years ago. That wide bracket could be narrowed, geneticists believed, by charting mutations in human mitochondrial DNA, small bits of DNA floating outside the nuclei of our cells. So they went to work collecting samples from all over the world. When the results were in, none of the geneticists could believe it. They had to run their samples through again and again to be certain. Even then, there was hesitancy about announcing it. Everyone knew there would be a firestorm of controversy, starting with the establishment paleontologists, who would be given the intellectual equivalent of a black eye and a bloody nose, and their heads dunked into a toilet for good measure. This would publicly embarrass them in a way that had not happened since the Piltdown hoax was exposed. Despite the usual scientific practice of keeping a lid on data that radically differed with a current paradigm, the importance of this new evidence finally outweighed concern for the image and feelings of establishment paleontologists. The geneticists gathered their courage and stepped into the line of fire, announcing that humans were not anywhere near the official age range of eight to five million years old. Humans were only about 200,000 years old. As expected, the howls of protest were deafening. Time and much more testing of mitochondrial DNA and male Y-chromosomes now make it beyond doubt that the geneticists were correct. And the establishment paleontologists have come to accept it because geneticists were able to squeeze humans through the same kind of “bottleneck effect” they used to try to ameliorate the mystery of cheetahs. By doing so they left establishment paleontologists able to still insist that humans evolved from primitive forebears walking upright on the savannahs of Africa as long as five million years ago, but between 100,000 and 200,000 years ago “something” happened to destroy nearly all humans alive at the time, forcing them to start reproducing again from a small population of survivors. If only… Apart from disputes about the date and circumstances of our origin as a species, there are plenty of other problems with humans. Like domesticated plants and animals, humans stand well outside the classic Darwinian paradigm. Darwin himself made the observation that humans were surprisingly like domesticated animals. In fact, we are so unusual relative to other primates that it can be solidly argued we do not belong on Earth at all….that we are not even from Earth because we do not seem to have developed here…like other domesticated plants and animals. We are taught that by every establishment scientific measure humans are primates very closely related to all other primates, especially to chimpanzees and gorillas. This is so ingrained in our psyches it seems futile to even examine it, much less challenge it. But we will. Bones: Human bones are much lighter than comparable primate bones. For that matter, our bones are much lighter than the bones of every “pre-human” ancestor through Neanderthal. The ancestor bones look like primate bones; Modern Human bones do not. Muscle: Human muscles are significantly weaker than comparable muscles in primates. Pound-for-pound we are five to ten times weaker than any other primate. Any pet monkey is evidence of that. Somehow getting “better” made us much, much weaker. Skin: Human skin is not well adapted to the amount of sunlight striking Earth. It can be modified to survive extended exposure by greatly increasing melanin (its dark pigment) at its surface, which only the black race has achieved. All others must cover themselves with clothing or frequent shade or both, or sicken from radiation poisoning. Body Hair: Primates need not worry about direct exposure to sunlight because they are covered from head to toe in a distinctive pattern of long body hair. Because they are quadrupeds (move on all fours), the thickest is on their back, the thinnest on the chest and abdomen. Humans have lost or never had the all-over pelt, and we have completely switched our area of thickness to the chest and abdomen while wearing the thin part on our backs. Fat: Humans have ten times as many fat cells attached to the underside of their skin as primates do. If a primate is wounded by a gash or tear in the skin, when the bleeding stops the wound’s edges lay flat near each other and can quickly close the wound by a process called “contracture.” In humans the fat layer is so thick that it pushes up through wounds and makes contracture difficult if not impossible. Also, contrary to propaganda to try to explain this oddity, the fat under human skin does not compensate for the body hair we have lost. Only in water is its insulating capacity useful; in air it is minimal at best. Head Hair: All primates have head hair that grows to a certain length and stops. Human head hair grows to such lengths that it could be dangerous in a primitive situation. Thus, we have been forced to cut our head hair since we became a species, which might account for some of the sharp flakes of stones that are considered primitive hominid “tools.” Fingernails and Toenails: All primates have fingernails and toenails that grow to a certain length and then stop, never needing paring. Human fingernails and toenails have always needed paring. Again, maybe those stone “tools” were not for butchering animals alone. Skulls: The human skull is nothing like the primate skull. There is hardly any fair morphological comparison to be made apart from the general parts being the same. Their design and assembly are so radically different as to make attempts at comparison useless. Brains: The comparison here is even more radical because human brains are so vastly different. (To say “improved” or “superior” is unfair and not germane because primate brains work perfectly well for what primates have to do to live and reproduce…survive.) Locomotion: The comparison here is easily as wide as the comparison of brains and skulls. Humans are bipedal, primates are quadrupeds. That says more than enough. For footed animals can run faster than two legged ones. Speech: Human throats are completely redesigned relative to primates. The larynx has dropped to a much lower position so humans can break typical primate sounds into the tiny pieces of sound (by modulation) that have come to be human speech. Sex: Primate females have estrous cycles and are sexually receptive only at special times. Human females have no estrous cycle in the primate sense. They are continually receptive to sex. (Unless, of course, they have the proverbial headache) Chromosomes: This is the most inexplicable difference of all. Primates have 48 chromosomes. Humans are considered vastly superior to them in a wide array of areas, yet somehow we have only 46 chromosomes! This begs the question of how could we lose two full chromosomes, which represents a lot of DNA, in the first place? And in the process, how could we become so much better? Nothing about it makes logical sense. Genetic Disorders: As with all wild animals (plants, too), primates have relatively few genetic disorders spread throughout their gene pools. Albinism is one that is common to many animal groups, as well as humans. But albinism does not stop an animal with it from growing up and passing the gene for it into the gene pool. Mostly, though, serious defects are quickly weeded out in the wild. Often parents or others in a group will do the job swiftly and surely, so wild gene pools stay relatively clear. In contrast, humans have over 4,000 genetic disorders, and several of those will absolutely kill every victim before reproduction is possible. This begs the question of how such defects could possibly get into the human gene pool in the first place, much less how do they remain widespread? Genetic Relatedness: A favorite Darwinist statistic is that the total genome (all the DNA) of humans differs from chimps by only 1% and from gorillas by 2%. This makes it seem as if evolution is indeed correct and that humans and primates are virtually kissing cousins. However, what they don’t stress is that 1% of the human genome’s 3 billion base pairs is 30 million base pairs, and to any You-Know-What that can adroitly manipulate genes, 30 million base pairs can easily add up to a tremendous amount of difference. Everything Else: The above are the larger categories at issue in the discrepancies between primates and humans. There are dozens more listed as sub-categories below one or more of these. To delve deeper into these fascinating mysteries, check “The Scars Of Evolution” by Elaine Morgan (Oxford University Press, 1990). Her work is remarkable. And for a more in-depth discussion of the mysteries within our genes and in those of domesticated plants and animals, I cover it extensively in “Everything You Know Is Wrong” (available only by ordering through http://www.iUniverse.com — not Amazon.com…) When all of the above is taken together, the inexplicable puzzles presented by domesticated plants, domesticated animals, and Modern Humans, it is clear that Darwin cannot explain it either. No modern establishment scientists can explain it either. None of them can explain it because it is not explainable in only Earth bound terms. We will not answer these questions with any degree of satisfaction until our establishment scientists open their minds and squelch their egos enough to acknowledge that they do not, in fact, know much about their own back yard. Until that happens, the truth will remain obscured and confused. My (Lloyd Pye) personal opinion, which is based on a great deal of independent research in a wide range of disciplines relating to human origins, is that ultimately Charles Darwin will be best known for his observation that humans are essentially like domesticated or hybridized animals. I believe what Darwin observed with his own eyes and research is the truth, and modern establishment scientists would see it as clearly as he did if only they had the motivation, or the courage, to seek it out. But for now they don’t, so until then we can only poke and prod at them in the hope of someday getting them to notice our complaints and address them. In order to poke and prod successfully, more people have to be alerted to the fact that another scientific fraud is being perpetrated. Later editions of “Icons Of Evolution” will discuss the current era when mainstream establishment scientists ridiculed, ignored, or simply refused to deal with a small mountain of direct, compelling evidence that outside intervention has clearly been at work in the genes of domesticated plants, animals, and humans. You-Know-What has left traces of their handiwork all over our bodies, all through our gene pools, and all that will be required is for a few “insiders” to break ranks with their brainwashed peers. Look to the younger generation. Without mortgages to pay, families to raise and retirements to prepare for, they can find the courage to act on strong convictions. The fat lady is nowhere in sight, but that doesn’t mean she’s not suiting up. Copyright © 2004 by Lloyd Pye All Rights Reserved. Reprinted with Permission About the Author Lloyd Pye was born in 1946 in Louisiana. He grew up in the small town of Amite, where he was a star running back, receiver, and punter on a State Championship football team. That led to a football scholarship to Tulane University in New Orleans, where he was a running back and nationally ranked punter before graduating in 1968 with a B.S. in psychology. After graduating from Tulane he joined the U.S. Army and became a Military Intelligence Agent performing routine background checks throughout northern Georgia. Based out of Third Army Headquarters in Atlanta, he was never a “spy” or anything like that, although on orders he did infiltrate a few student rallies at the University of Georgia (during the era of SDS, when J. Edgar Hoover saw a student radical behind every bushy beard). His experience at that was more comical than serious, which taught him that “black ops” were not his forte. It was during this time that Mr. Pye began a serious independent study of all aspects of human evolution. By the time he was 30, his studies led him to conclude humans could not possibly have evolved on Earth according to the prevailing Darwinian paradigm. By the time he was 40, he could convincingly illustrate his belief by comparing skeletons in the so-called “pre-human” fossil record with those reported to belong to the world’s four basic types of hominoids (Bigfoot/Sasquatch, The Abominable Snowman/Yeti, and two other types Westerners know next to nothing about: Almas and Agogwes). Although Mr. Pye’s research had convinced him that humans did not evolve on Earth like other animals and plants may have, he had no idea where we might have come from, so he undertook an extended search for an answer. At the same time, he was attempting to establish himself as a novelist and scriptwriter. His first novel was published in 1977, his next a decade later, in between which he lived and worked in the hinterlands of Hollywood, achieving a few modest successes before finally accepting that he was temperamentally unsuited to the Hollywood lifestyle. Still pursuing his human origins research, in 1990 Mr. Pye got lucky enough to stumble onto the work of Zecharia Sitchin, whose monumental research into the historical writings of the ancient Sumerians provided answers to human development that he had been seeking. In every way Mr. Pye could think to judge it, Mr. Sitchin’s research appeared unimpeachable, so it became the bedrock of correctness that he had been seeking, a genuine turning point in his life and in his career as a writer. Realizing his own hominoid research provided a “front end” to Mr. Sitchin’s research into all aspects of the Sumerian culture, and that Mr. Sitchin’s work provided a “back end” to his own extensive research into hominoids, in 1990 Mr. Pye began working to find a way to fuse the two together. “Everything You Know Is Wrong—Book One: Human Origins” is the result of that fusion. And due to Mr. Pye’s many years as a fiction writer, it is constructed like no other purely nonfiction text of its kind. It is designed much like a “whodunit,” with a sequential, clue-by-clue development of the storyline that allows readers to try to anticipate and figure out “what comes next.” “Everything You Know Is Wrong–Book One: Human Origins” is highly informative, continually entertaining, and downright fun to read. But more than that, it plausibly and convincingly answers some of the most profound questions we can ask of ourselves: Who are we? Why are we here? And most important of all: Are we alone? So Mr. Pye hit the interstates in an old Buick Roadmaster to bring his book and his message to the public. With no training at all as a platform speaker, he was rapidly and widely acclaimed as one of the very best in the entire field of alternative knowledge. Because of the notoriety he generated with his whirlwind tour promoting EYKIW, in February of 1999 a couple in west Texas contacted him about a peculiar artifact they owned. It was a genuine bone skull that weighed half as much as a normal human skull and looked nothing like one. However, it looked very much like a skull that would fit inside the head of a so-called “grey” alien. They asked Mr. Pye if he would examine their highly anomalous artifact. He agreed to do so and was immediately blown away by how far it was from the human norms in every dimension he knew how to evaluate. He told them he felt it was very likely not a natural deformity and not entirely human. They asked him to undertake the task of getting the skull scientifically tested to determine its genetic pedigree. He agreed to do so, which meant stopping his all-out campaign to promote EYKIW. The 900-year-old skull has come to be known as The Starchild Skull. It has been publicized around the world through The Learning Channel, Animal X, Extra (on Globbo TV), and in a wide range of print media. Its genetic heritage should be determined by the middle of 2003. Regular updates about it are posted at http://www.starchildproject.com. Starchild and Lloyd Pye were featured in a recent National Geographic episode of their show “Is It Real?” The episode is “Ancient Astronauts,” and can be found in any location by checking the National Geographic cable channel website. Copyright 2006 by Lloyd Pye. Presented with permission of the author. http://www.lloydpye.com/articles.htmlAerensiniac said: (03/31/2011)Mainstream atheism and materialism are just about much a religion as any theist concepts. Atheism believes that because their belief is the rejection of a different belief, it no longer counts as a belief. This however is probably the worst sort of demagogy anybody can come up with. Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the 6 strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used. – Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald, September 16, 1990, A1 humbled4444, 11/27/12 Scientists at the University of Alberta have revived bacteria from the historic Franklin expedition who mysteriously perished in the Arctic nearly 150 years ago. Not only are the 6 strains of bacteria almost certainly the oldest ever revived, says medical microbiologist Dr. Kinga Kowalewska-Grochowska three of them also happen to be resistant to antibiotics. In this case, the antibiotics clindamycin and cefoxitin, both of which developed more than a century after the men died, were among those used. – Ed Struzik, Ancient bacteria revived, Sunday Herald, September 16, 1990, A1 This study clearly shows bacteria were already antibiotic resistant a century before these antibiotics were invented. Antibiotic resistant bacteria have not evolved but always existed. Once we kill off the bacteria non-resistant to antibiotics, only the antibiotic-resistant bacteria remain. Antibiotic resistance is NOT evidence for evolution. Kent Perry, 11/17/13…the past 150 years has been spent by Darwin and his contemporaries, inventing, sometimes very extravagant, very imaginative ideas for any plausible way Darwins’ theory could have happened and tactics employed to get it accepted that I would say are sophomoric. Nothing about doing actual science challenging his theory but more about disposing of critics by coming up with strategies to mitigate the consequences of anticipated questions they had no answer for to this day.What Dawkins attacks religion of doing by saying faith stops all further inquiry in science, using the popular snide remark “God did it” to end all further discussion, he is so guilty of such similar dogma with phrases such as, “There is no argument evolution happened” or using the term of endearment, affectionately calling it “The Fact of Evolution” followed by some other area of REAL Science they attach to the coat tails of its universal acceptance, like “Evolution has been tested and proven more than Gravity”. I would say it SHOULD be given how weak it is but that isn’t the real problem I have with it. The real problem is that it IS NOT tested and skepticism in science is what fine tunes a theory giving it credibility or passing it off to the dustbin wrong headed ideas.This was written by Maximus Aurelius Feb. 6, 2014
PILTDOWN MAN, THE SCIENCE COMMUNITY, AND FRAUD ATTENTION FOLKS PUBLIC SERVICE ANNOUNCEMENT Folks, every time I bring up PILTDOWN MAN, some fool says “Piltdown man was exposed by scientists.” AND then OldTinEar says, ” What you miss is that Piltdown was a fraud ON the scientific community, not BY it. The fraudster (believer Dawson) acted in bad faith. The scientific community acted in good faith.” But the problem is that the scientific community embraced the Piltdown Man for 50 years. AND then the evotards say science is self correcting. HAR HAR HAR Let’s get to the bottom of this issue folks. The scientific community accepted the Piltdown Man as the missing link between humans and monkeys and when he was exposed as a fake they just grabbed up another fraud and kept on going. They are still going today. Evolution is a fraud yesterday, today, and tomorrow. So the FACT IS they are still promoting fraud and when it is finally exposed you’re going to say, “Oh look science corrected itself.” HAR HAR HAR Here is a partial list of the frauds promoted by the scientific community. 1. Piltdown man 2. Java man 3. Nebraska man 4. Neanderthal man 5. Peking man 6. Archaeopteryx 7. Archaeoraptor 8. Lucy 9. Haeckel’s embryos 10. Claim that all creatures are transitional and then failure to find transitionals 11. The circular logic and argument from ignorance of vestigial organs 12. Dinos turning into birds 13. Wolf creatures into whales 14. Frankenstein experiments 15. Failed germ and fly experiments 16. Failed Abiogenesis experiments 17. Monkeys turning into men The mere fact that they promote fraud and continue promoting fraud every time fraud is exposed puts the science community in the light of lacking any credibility whatsoever. The whole evolution thing is a fraud from one end to the other. LURID HISTORY OF THEORY OF EVOLUTION Piltdown Man HOAX, Series of Diabolical “Missing Link” Frauds & Failure To Satisfy Scientific Standard of Irrefutable Evidence. 1913-53 Piltdown Man HOAX, Manufactured Missing Link! Nebraska Man, Discarded Pigs Tooth Peking Man, Conglomeration of Co-Mingled Fossils Lucy, Plaster Reconstruction Orce Man, 4 Month Old Donkey Bone 2009 Ida, Grossly Unsupportable Classification 2010 Sebida, equivalent deceased PetsMart Gerbil 2012 ZERO CREDIBILITY
- George Keith wrote on April 10, 2014:
- It occurs to me that intelligent design in living things is so pervasive, and obvious, from the smallest single cell component, to the largest whale or tree, that we should simply treat it as a fundamental assumption, like the existence of integers. The discovery and unraveling of DNA, with its many incredible features, is more than enough to convince most people who are familiar with it.Suppose we did that? What dreadful thing would happen to all science? What marvelous inventions would never have been born? What critical research would have fallen by the wayside? How would things be done differently, than they are now? I suspect very little would change. Most of the interesting research in biology, especially microbiology, is figuring out how the existing systems work. Ironically, this does assume they are designed – as they must work according to principles that can be identified. And they do. Biologists just don’t talk about that part.Who would the losers be? Natural history museum directors? Not at all. Replace those evolution displays with the incredible discoveries in microbiology. Atheists? They might feel somewhat abandoned if their creation story is ignored, but it won’t slow science down. And they have many other lines of attack for why this or that conception of God is inadequate, so it doesn’t really hurt their business. Grants to study evolution? Easily replaced by grants to study the limitless number of living systems that we don’t understand. Textbook publishers? They would benefit the most of anyone, by requiring changes in all those textbooks. Education? No one talks much about evolution anyway. So few people truly understand it, that it would be a relief to all those who have tried to explain it over the years. Religion versus science? That battle can still be waged with young earth creationists over the age of the earth, how light arrived from stars, and whether there really was a universal, global flood, and an ark. As Forest Gump said about money, it would be “one less thing”.
- September 26, 2014Mario Novakcommented on a video on YouTube (The Evolution of Sexual Reproduction: It’s Impossible)If we conduct a simple scientific experiment and knock out genes responsible for some part of the irreducibly complex core of reproductive system, the biological process by which new offspring individual organisms are produced from their parents will be stopped. In other words if we take one step back in the “evolution of reproductive system” evolution will stop – we all know that without reproduction there is no evolution. This experiment can be repeated for any organism, whether it reproduces sexually or asexually. We will always get the same result – a fundamental feature of all known life – reproductive function – will cease to exist in that organism. So, we have simple and irrefutable scientific evidence that evolution is impossible, yet 99% of scientists believe in evolution. How is that possible?stevebee92653 responded:That’s a great point. I had to read it twice to get the idea of what you are saying, but it is so right on. One step back in any reproductive cycle stops all reproduction, which stops evo. This point alone should kill evo for all scientists, but they obviously want to believe more than they want to do science. We are not that far off from the scientific mindset of 500 years ago. They wanted to believe the Earth was the center of the universe more than they wanted to observe and think. Thanks for the comment!
Mario Novak responded:
The usual excuse given by evolutionists for ignorance of such obvious scientific observations is something like this: “Because we currently cannot provide an adequate evolutionary explanation for the origin of sexual reproduction, this doesn’t mean that evolution is false. Or another: “if evolution of sexual reproduction is impossible to imagine, it doesn’t follow that sexual reproduction is not the product of evolution.
But this kind of pseudo-reasoning can also be used by proponents of a flat Earth, such as the Flat Earth Society. We have knowledge about the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation, and that knowledge shows that Earth is an oblate spheroid. Likewise, we have knowledge based on facts learned through experiments and observation, which shows that reproductive function of any organism cease to exist if we reduce core components of reproductive system. But, reduced/less complex state of the system is conditio sine qua non for the idea/theory of evolution. So, excuses mentioned above, given by evolutionists are completely flawed. They are like saying something like this: “Because we currently cannot provide an adequate explanation for the flat Earth, this doesn’t mean that Flat Earth theory is false”. Or: “if flat Earth is impossible to imagine, it doesn’t follow that Earth is not flat.” This type of pseudo-reasoning is modus operandi of evolutionists.
- Isabel Tanaka , YouTube, March 22, 2015DNA should not continue to be the star of the show; it can do nothing without the integrated cellular machinery that both reads its instructions and “decides” when to execute them (e.g., the polymerase enzymatic protein “unzips” the helix at a specific section at a specific time). Besides the DNA code is not translated into RNA from neatly linear transcript, the DNA ‘text’ needs to be edited, and that requires that the cellular machinery have prior “knowledge” of which stretches to edit out and which ones to keep. (http://www.dnalc.org/resources/3d/24-mrna-splicing.html).
Each cell makes hundreds of thousands of different RNAs and a large percent of those are cleaved into shorter functional RNAs. These can also be created by copying sequences of DNA that are not near each other, and then joined together in a RNA molecule. The coding parts of the genes come in pieces, like beads on a string, and by splicing out different “beads”(exons), so that a single gene can potentially code for tens of thousands of different proteins, although the average is five. Adding to this complexity is the way in which genes are switched on and off, as the more recent recently discovered epigenome, which is an additional code over the DNA, so that in essence it is not only ACGT, but ACGTCm (metyl tags on cytosine that signal * the RNA polymerase to skip over the stretches of code that are tagged).
This multi-functional complexity has been compared to polyndromes, namely the Sator Square, the earliest known was found in the ruins of Pompeii. The Sator can be read the same way in four different ways: left to right; up and down, and starting at the lower right, down to up, right to left. Any single letter change in this system destroys all four messages simultaneously… In genomic terms ‘meaningless’ means the code does not transcribe into a functional protein.
This raises serious difficulties for Darwinian evolution, because a single copy error (mutation) can potentially affect the expression of many proteins. As empirical evidence has shown that mutations always create a less fit organism, evolution becomes necessarily a failed hypothesis — the alleged improvements in fitness are due to loss of information, which may make the organism appear more fit, but that was because it was made fitter for a more specific environment, and thus less fit to survive changes in environmental conditions.
*Note that ‘signalling’ is a cybernetic function, which requires prior programming; inert matter cannot signal anything to another inert bit of matter, but less that both bits have a inter-relational understanding of the meaning of that tag, that is, what it prescribes. This epistemological problem is the core problem of both the origin and alleged evolution of living organisms.
keith CaughornJune 15, 2015 11:06 AMImagination is precisely why the theory can not be falsified (which is why it is not scientific ). It also allows the theory to predict opposites (i.e mega change over millions of years and no change at all over millions of years)
How do you falisfy a scientific theory that uses imagination as an escape mechanism every time you point out the holes in theory?
I like what Cornelius Hunter wrote:
“Being an evolutionist means there is no bad news. If new species appear abruptly in the fossil record, that just means evolution operates in spurts. If species then persist for eons with little modification, that just means evolution takes long breaks. If clever mechanisms are discovered in biology, that just means evolution is smarter than we imagined. If strikingly similar designs are found in distant species, that just means evolution repeats itself. If significant differences are found in allied species, that just means evolution sometimes introduces new designs rapidly. If no likely mechanism can be found for the large-scale change evolution requires, that just means evolution is mysterious. If adaptation responds to environmental signals, that just means evolution has more foresight than was thought. If major predictions of evolution are found to be false, that just means evolution is more complex than we thought.”