The Myth Of Neandertals Continues To Be Debunked

Anthropologists have created this story about the perception of early man’s intelligence and capabilities which amounts to simplistic and not so smart. This is how evolution works, they claim. Neandertals are not considered dumb brutes anymore. It”s my contention, Neandertals were fully human, acted like humans, displayed all the normal things humans do, no difference.

In science daily

“Neandertals, the ‘stupid’ cousins of modern humans were capable of capturing the most impressive animals. This indicates that Neandertals were anything but dim. Dutch researcher Gerrit Dusseldorp analysed their daily forays for food to gain insights into the complex behaviour of the Neandertal. His analysis revealed that the hunting was very knowledge intensive.”

“The Neandertals were not easily intimated by their game. Rhinoceroses, bisons and even predators such as the brown bear were all on their menu. Dusseldorp established that just as for modern humans, the environment and the availability of food determined the choice of prey and the hunting method adopted. If the circumstances allowed it, Neandertals lived in large groups and even the most attractive and difficult to catch prey were within their reach.”

Hunting these types of animals takes much ability with good communication which Neandertals were able to do. One wonders where are all those brutes are who couldn’t communicate normally or hunt certain animals which requires good intelligence and communication because the story from anthropologists who believe in evolution is not adding up.

Another example of bad story telling, manufactured beads were found that are supposedly 82,000 years old.  A great debate is going on because evolutionists claim it was too early for humans to have such an ability. Speaking of ability and beads, there are ones made out of shells which were also found in Morocco.

The beads were pretty similar to those found in Africa supposedly 72,000 years ago.  The discovery was very interesting, because the Taforalt discoveries were identical shell types from geographically distant regions.” It wasn’t like these groups of people were living within a few miles of each other where they could learn from one another.

As we can see, and continue to learn, ancient man wasn’t evolving nor were they too dumb to invent cities for 100,000 years. The only reason why a story like this continues to even exist within evolutionary circles is result in the belief of  man coming from apes.


20 thoughts on “The Myth Of Neandertals Continues To Be Debunked

  1. There exists no “belief of man coming from apes”.
    There is a well-tested theory called the theory of evolution that shows that man and apes had a common ancestor.

  2. Very interesting post.

    As a Biblical Creationist I too recognise that the fantasies of Naturalistic philosophy distort not only the discipline of science but history too.

    And I concur with you entirely that there indeed very much does exist ‘the belief of man coming from apes’. That describes exactly what it is. I think Eelco’s defensive denial above shows just how inconsistent and evasive Evolutionists can be. To say ‘There exists no “belief of man coming from apes”’ is a basic denial of the Evolutionist view of man.

    And for Eelco to suggest Evolution is a well-tested theory that shows man and apes had a common ancestor is misleading in the extreme. Evolutionary theory has always been unfounded speculation and continues to be so to this day. It has never been shown that man and apes had a common ancestor.

  3. What is your point about humans (sapiens) and neandertals? They are a separate species, and the recent sequence of a Neandertal genome demonstrates that they did not interbreed with sapiens. They may have been ahead of their human contemporaries in some ways, behind in other ways, or merely different.

    By the way, humans are still evolving, whether you like it or not. One new gene appeared about 5,300 years ago, and has spread to about 35% of the population. Another appeared about 37,000 years ago, and about 80% of us have it.

  4. @Dom:

    Ah, evolution is just fantasy, distortion, inconsistent, evasive, etc etc. That sounds very convincing (not).

    And of course it has been shown that man and apes have a common ancestor (read any basic biology textbook !). If you want to close your eyes, sure, go ahead, but evolution is a basic fact of science, and the theory of evolution has been well-tested. If you want to say that this is “misleading in the extreme”, you’d really have to back up such an outrageous statement.

  5. Eelco, it is perfectly obvious to some that Evolutionary theory is dependent upon fantasy, distortion and inconsistency. Whether or not you are convinced this is true is quite another matter. It is my experience that Evolutionists are commonly incapable of critiquing the idea of common ancestry with any degree of intellectual honesty because of their dedication to the idea regardless of the facts. The fact is the fossils do not show that man and apes have a common ancestor, that is just what Evolutionists insist on believing regardless.

    You are incorrect to assert that “it has been shown that man and apes have a common ancestor”; regardless of what basic biology text books might say (they have been documented perpetuating falsehoods) the reality is that Evolutionists cannot agree on what the evidence does really show and are unclear about what might have evolved into what, because the evidence of common ancestry of man and ape is in fact not forthcoming from the fossil record.

    Below is some food for thought which you will probably be completely disinterested in; but y’know, if you read through some of the the material below, you might just have to admit
    that the Naturalistic propaganda about the certainty of man’s ancestry is not substantiated by the facts (but then again, as an Evolutionist, why would you let the facts deter you from grand statements of certainty, right?) –

    You say of my assertion it is misleading in the extreme to claim Evolution theory shows man and apes had a common ancestor that I’d “really have to back up such an outrageous statement.” But I suggest it is actually incumbent upon Evolutionists to back up their claims that man and ape share a common ancestry, for so far it has not been shown despite the claims.

  6. Oh dear. As if I have not seen most of these creationist websites … and you are using quite a few of their debating tactics. Like shifting the burden of proof where this is completely unwarranted !
    Evolution is observed, and the associated theory is well-tested. If you do not believe this, for whatever reason, *you* have to come up with the evidence for your extraordinary claims (and that is what they are, extraordinary). That is common scientific practice.

    Ah, and there is a lot of hoax thinking on your behalf, I’m afraid. To counter your list of websites, I could list many more stating the obvious evidence for evolution, and the various books showing the overwhelming evidence from the fossil record (Donald Prothero’s, for example).

    But I think you know all this, and you still, willingly and knowingly, decide to ignore all this. *That* is intellectual dishonesty.

  7. Oh dear, dear, dear, Eelco.

    Oh dear, dear, dear, dear, dear, Eelco.

    Oh dear, dear, dear, dear, dear, dear, dear.

    Well, I think I win that argument.

    Your next point accuses me of using ‘debating tactics’ when actually I have merely taken you up on your assertion that it has been shown that man and apes have a common ancestry. I suggest it is apparent you just don’t like people daring to challenge your grand pronouncements.

    You say I am ‘shifting the burden of proof where this is completely unwarranted!’ But why is it unwarranted to suggest Darwinism need be proven? Do you consider it to be a special theory exempt from normal scientific rigor?

    Just as with any other scientific theory, historically the burden of proof has always lain with proponents of Darwinism to show it is correct. That’s the central thrust of Darwin’s book Origin of the Species and it’s why he discussed problems with the theory. Even Darwin knew he had at least to try and pretend to try and show it might be true; although obviously, he, much like yourself continuing the legacy today, was in reality evidently perfectly content to merely expect people to believe in it just because he said he thought it might be.

    The burden of proof has always lain with Darwinism to prove itself to be true; that’s the nature of scientific endeavour. But it has never done so. You might ask yourself why. And concerning the specific subject of the history of man, it has never been shown that man and apes share a common ancestry. Theorising and opinion does not constitute fact; except in Evolutionary thought; as demonstrated by your assertion that you consider it ‘completely unwarranted’ to expect Evolutionists to bear the burden of proof for their claims.

    It’s all the Evolutionist grand posturing I choose to ignore, Eelco. I like researching science.

    I think if you actually took in some the points raised via the links I supplied you would at least have to admit there is no scientific certainty that man and apes share a common ancestry. And if you are interested in facing the facts, then perhaps you might try these books which show this perfectly clearly in more detail –

    You say you ‘could list many more stating the obvious evidence for evolution’; well, if you would like to get specific, and staying on subject, would you suggest just one website that shows conclusively that man and apes share a common ancestry?

  8. Interesting, it seems that you are here to ‘win arguments’. That is not what science is about, which is about understanding things, together.

    Apparently you also do not allow people to use ‘oh dear’, but to remain poker-faced at all times. OK, Ill do that then. Imagine me typing this with a straight face.

    The burden of proof is on any *new* theory that challenges the current one, the paradigma (in this case evolution), which has been shown to be the best one (by far !) to explain all current observations. To deny that is closing your eyes to all the evidence, which shows evolution to be a scientific fact. The corresponding theory is in pretty good shape, but can always be debated, obviously. But the observed facts are there. Two recent books that review all this evidence:

    Donald Prothero: “Evolution, what the fossils say and why it matters”. This reviews all the fossil evidence.

    Sean Carroll: “The making of the fittest: DNA and the ultimate forensic record of evolution”. This reviews the DNA evidence.

    As for website there are the usual databases of links to other websites, so a good starting point is, even though this website is not comprehensive. For that you just need to read any textbook on evolution (Hoekstra and Frears is my favorite one).

    Finally, nothing is certain in science. If you seek certainty, science is not for you.

  9. Like most creationists, Dom harbors a conspiracy theory against science. 484,000 biological researchers, paleontologists, and geologists are engaging in a 150-year conspiracy to deny The Truth, for—well, for some unstated purpose. 1,750 papers published last year are chock full of falsehoods. Nobel prize winners? What do they know, really?

    Think about it this way, Dom. You are buying drugs designed by dishonest developers. You fill your gas tank from oil discovered according to evolutionary principles by fraudster geologists. You get flu shots manufactured according to the false doctrines of evolution.

    You should be sitting in a corner, using only products from creationist science. There must be thousands of them … there must be dozens … there must be at least one. You’ll have to tell me, though, because I can’t think of any at all.

  10. And, oh yes. You accept DNA evidence based upon spurious evolution. Why don’t you start a campaign to re-incarcerate all those criminals freed on such fraudulent grounds? Why don’t you call upon creationist scientists to expose its necessary falsity, and produce tests based upon creationism? Again, good luck.

  11. Eelco, you say I’m here to win arguments. Well, yeeeees, its called ‘debate’. You know what I mean, like when someone posts comments like –

    ‘There exists no “belief of man coming from apes”. There is a well-tested theory called the theory of evolution that shows that man and apes had a common ancestor.’

    Does that not seem like someone trying to ‘win arguments’ too? Yes, of course it does, because it what happens when you put forward a point about something.

    And actually, science is about the empirical study of physical phenomena. And Darwinian evolution is not the best interpretation of the data, its just the most popular, due in no small part to unfounded propaganda such you broadcast.

    Evolution is not a scientific fact it is a scientific theory, and if one is prepared to critically analyse scientific evidence one may discover that it is a theory starkly at odds with the the facts.

    I looked at some of the website you cited, I did not find anything conclusive that man and apes share common ancestry, merely the ususal Evolutionist interpretations of fossils. But those fossils minus the Evolutionist interpretations, do no themselves show common ancestry of man and ape.

    And if you believe, as you say, that ‘nothing is certain in science’, then how can you also tell me evolution is a fact. You appear to have a fundamental contradiction in your approach to science.

    And you may, of course, say ‘oh dear’ as often as you wish. I was merely funning around because it just sounded so condescending of you.

    Oorlin, you do like your propaganda nice and thick, don’t you? Many Non-creationists have problems with problems with Evolutionary theory too. And professional, succesful scientists can be Biblical Creationists too.

    And oil and medical research is not dependent upon Evolutionary theory. Didn’t you know that? And neither is DNA research. In fact DNA research contradicts the morphologically derived Darwinian tree of life so much that the tree idea is beginning to quietlly disregarded.

    So you sit in your corner eating your proaganda. Meanwhile in the real world more and more people are realisng bit bit that Darwin was wrong. Which is wonderful.

    But hey guys, com one now. Don’t get so het up about it.

    If you believe nothing is certain in science then you can’t be certain about anything scientific, can you? So, if you are uncertain, why get so agitated when I question Darwin’s theory?

  12. Dom: “If you believe nothing is certain in science then you can’t be certain about anything scientific, can you? So, if you are uncertain, why get so agitated when I question Darwin’s theory?:

    Because, unlike a scientist, you don not question it with contrary evidence, but only with mere assertion and third-hand quotations.

    Science is uncertain, but we go with the totality of the evidence. The more the evidence, the more confident the conclusion. The evidence is certain enough that we call the existence of evolution a fact—that is, ibeyond a reasonable doubt. The mechanisms by which evolution operates are called the theory of evolution—new mechanisms, and modifications of previous ones—are being discovered all the time.

    The arguments against evolution that you are using is called “Daubertization” in legal circles. They follow the style that the Tobacco Institute used (and still employs—see Michaels, “Doubt Is Their Product,” Oxford U Press, 2008 ) to argue that cigarettes are not really harmful. Briefly, since the results of each test can be uncertain to some extent, they attack the edges of each study, the parts that are not that important, to discredit the central result. Attacking each one individually gives an aura of doubt, even though the results of all the studies taken together point to the same conclusion.

    So with evolution. Even though each piece of evidence by itself may have some flaws, the tons of evidence from many different fields that all point in the same direction make the fact of evolution inescapable.

    You won’t believe that, of course. But doesn’t it seem a bit peculiar that the more a person knows about the evidence, the more willing he is to accept it? When all you read is the title of a New Scientist (which is to science as the National Enquirer is to news) article questioning whether a tree, a bush, or something else is a proper metaphor for common descent, then denial becoames very easy.

    I’ll take apart only one of your claims above, the one that DNA evidence is not based upon evolution. ID claims that there is no such thing as “junk DNA,” because a designer would not include something that has no use. Yet, DNA evidence is based upon tracing similarities in SINES, endogenous retroviruses, broken genes, and faulty transposons in the genome. If these artifacts were not junk—that is, if they had any function whatsoever—then they would be useless as evidence of relatedness. The same technique, by the way, was recently employed to trace human migrations in Polynesia. (The results accorded well with known histories and with language affinities.) Also, the same evolutionary algorithm recently reconstructed the original version of Chaucer’s “Canterbury Tales” by analyzing the errors in hundreds of copies.

    Meanwhile, of course, there is not a single shred of positive scientific evidence for creationism or its stepchild, intelligent design. Michael Behe, one of the three practicing scientists in the world who embraces intelligent design, said when questioned under oath that there are no observations, experiments, or other data that demonstrate that any living organism was designed. (Kitzmiller v Dover,Transcript, 10/18/2005). So apparently you would rather believe in something fo which no evidence at all exists, rather than something which is supported by enough evidence to convince every relevant researcher in the world—except three.

    Ignorance is not itself a sin, but you should not make a virtue of it. This subject will become important to you. Here’s an example. A Louisiana archbishop is moving to make hybrids of humans with other organisms illegal. We scratch our heads, wondering what he has against us diabetics, who derive our insulin from bacteria that incorporate human genes. And several other drugs are produced in cows’ milk by hybridizing the cows with human cellular material. Tobacco plants are being studied for the same purpose—so tobacco might be not entirely harmful after all.

  13. @Dom:

    Well, Olorin has already posted a quite comprehensive reply to your posting (with thanks, Olorin !), so there is little to add for me.

    Still, I’ll post some replies.

    When I say nothing is certain in science, I mean a certainty of the type that you want: absolute certainty, something conclusive. Science cannot provide that (which seems discomforting to some people …), and that is not surprising either. But one can certainly (…) quantify the ‘level of certainty’ for a particular observation (‘facts’) or idea (“hypothesis’, ‘theory’).

    ‘Evolution’ is a scientific fact with a very high degree of certainty given the observations, and again, the theory of evolution that tries to interprete the facts of evolution is very well-tested. It is not perfect, as nothing is 100% certain in science, but to simply ignore the enormous body of evidence for evolution (which is what you do), and to replace that with something that has no evidence at all, but is based on religion (creationism/ID), is just plain stupid.

    You say I do not question evolution with contrary evidence, but only with mere assertion and third-hand quotations. That is pretty insulting to me, as I have done that. I have looked at many creationist websites, and …. saw no evidence there. At all.

    Then you say: “So you sit in your corner eating your proaganda. Meanwhile in the real world more and more people are realisng bit bit that Darwin was wrong. Which is wonderful.”
    You wish. Of course Darwin was wrong about things, and right about other things. He was a good scientist! His ideas about evolution were pretty good indeed (but again, not 100% perfect).

    I do not get agitated about what you believe, but about your proposition that I am not a good scientist, just spreading propaganda. That is mere slander.

    Finally, this still seems to be about ‘winning’ to you. For me a scientific debate is about learning something, not winning. The latter is what political debates are about.

  14. Hi guys, sorry taken a few days to reply.

    Olorin, you are obviously not interested, but there is in fact a lot of evidence against Evolution; scientific, mathematical and logical. And genetic too. But it gets dismissed by people who will dogmatically refuse to acknowledge any challenge to their theory.

    The challenges from molecular biology are but the latest problems for the theory, but Evolutionists substantially alter the theory itself to appear to accommodate the problems. Though in fact the theory cannot accommodate the problems. But meanwhile, whereas Evolutionists do their mental contortions, Biblical Creationists continue to build up more research which suits the evidence far better.

    With what is unfortunately the normal dismissive Evolutionist condescension, you make presumptuous and inaccurate statements that conveniently support your distorted views.

    You suggest my opinions about Evolution are derived from things like the title of a New Scientist article. But actually, I read from a variety of sources, and I was aware that DNA evidence does not corroborate Evolutionary theory long before I came across that report in the Guardian about the New Scientist article. And had you actually read my post about it, you would have realized that was the case within the first few paragraphs.

    I was previously aware of the fundamental problems which genetics poses for Evolutionary theory because I have previously read about it on numerous occasions from various sources. Yes, it is well known. Though rarely admitted by Evolutionists.

    And although you deride the New Scientist magazine, nevertheless the individuals quoted from the article are both evolutionary biologists, one from the University of California, the other from the Marie Curie University in Paris. They are a rare case of Evolutionists admitting that genetics poses such major problems for what Evolutionists thought might have happened. I quote, ‘the tree of life is being politely buried’.

    Now, you might not like me saying that DNA does not corroborate evolutionary theory, but that is the simple fact of the matter, otherwise it would corroborate the Evolutionists’ tree of life which we have been told for so long is a fact.

    Now, I know you will not accept the logic of this observation, for you cannot, but nonetheless, it is evidently very straightforward to those of us who are not compelled to hold on to Naturalistic explanation no matter what.

    I should point out that I am not an ID theory advocate, but a Biblical Creationist. Nonetheless there may be some criticisms of Evolutionary theory common to both ID theory and Biblical Creationism. And although you may find it hard to accept right now, because Evolutionists have a tendency to demand that the most fleeting observations of things they don’t understand must support Evolution, I think in a while you will find you are more comfortable conceding that there is no such thing as Junk DNA. The term ‘Junk DNA’ is but another term coined to fit an Evolutionist misconception. The so-called ‘junk’ is being used right now; which is to say that it is not what Evolutionists have called it; it is not in fact junk at all.

    Here are some Evolutionist sources, obviously couching the research in an Evolutionist context, which show this –

    As for your points about DNA research based upon evolution, I have absolutely no doubt that Evolutionists trace whatever correspondence they fancy between their Evolutionist belief and the data; they pick and choose whatever appears to fit and disregard everything else and declare themselves vindicated. Rather like picking out a picture from a sea of dots. See whatever you like. Not realistic, not scientific, and not intellectually honest. But we Biblical Creationists have long known this is how Evolutionists like to present their research.

    But the research you cite does not in itself show results derived from the application of Evolutionary principles, because tracing similarity does not demonstrate Evolution, because similarity shows similarity, not evolution.

    Another case of similarity studied, Evolution presumed and thus similarity presented as evidence of Evolution.

    It is the basic presumption which is cited as evidence of the basic presumption. Circular reasoning.

    For you, DNA must support Evolutionary theory, regardless of the actual evidence. Thus you present circular reasoning such as this without blinking an eye: ‘If these artifacts were not junk—that is, if they had any function whatsoever—then they would be useless as evidence of relatedness.’ But for you Evolutionists EVERYTHING is ‘evidence of relatedness’; you presume relatedness where there is but similarity, because for you similarity proves Evolution. But similarity does not prove Evolution. And indeed, similarity can more logically be argued as a trait of design.

    But, further to that, as the DNA in question evidently does indeed serve a function, does that mean that for Evolutionists it is ‘useless as evidence of relatedness’ (as you put it)?

    No, of course not, because it does not matter what Evolutionists see, they will always presume relatedness. That is their presumption without need of verification. It is the fundamental logical fallacy at the core of Evolutionary theory, and it is the reason the theory is not in truth scientific at all, as Karl Popper himself, the Evolutionistic philosopher of science who elucidated the scientific principle of falsification, realized –

    ‘There will be well-testable theories, hardly testable theories, and non-testable theories. Those which are non-testable are of no interest to empirical scientists’ Karl Popper, ‘Conjectures and Refutations’.

    And –

    ‘I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a
    metaphysical research programme’ Karl Popper, ‘Unended Quest’.

    My point being that, it does not matter what the evidence shows, you will always say it is evidence of Evolution, because Evolutionary theory is actually a nebulous philosophical postulate which does not rely upon scientific evidence, it merely identifies similarity and claims this as evidence of Evolution.

    I merely point out DNA does not corroborate the Evolutionist tree of life, that great Evolutionist ‘fact’. Your ‘fact’ does not agree with the evidence, yet again. But will you have the humility and honesty to concede your ‘fact’ must then be but a theory, an idea, a postulation, rather actually a fact? Most likely, from my experience, you will not.

    And you maintain the fallacy that everyone who really knows the facts agrees Evolution must be true, saying: ‘doesn’t it seem a bit peculiar that the more a person knows about the evidence, the more willing he is to accept it?’

    But actually, if you really want a more realistic appraisal, you might consider that in fact for many people, the more they discover about the evidence, the more they come to realise that Evolutionary theory is intellectually bankrupt. Here are a couple of examples, if you’re interested –

    And actually there is a lot of positive scientific evidence fitting the Biblical Creation framework. Michael Behe will say what he will, but there is a lot of data demonstrating the designed character of living organisms. Mathematically, for example, it is impossible for any living organism to have occurred accidentally. The maths is just against such an idea. But you will merely dismiss such contrary evidence out of hand because you presume you cannot be wrong.

    And you present the false impression that critics of Evolutionary theory merely snipe at minor, peripheral, uncertain details; ‘Daubertization’ as you refer to it.

    But that again is merely another convenient false impression. The reality is that Evolutionary theory has many fundamental flaws, in mathematics, logic, biology, paleontology and geology as well as genetics. Here are some points for you, there are other sources to read up about these things and I suggest you read further –

    And your portraying the debate as being between every ‘relevant researcher’ and ‘three’ is simply infantile and misleading nonsense. For example –

    Olorin, in summary, you merely present convenient presumption, inadequate argumentation and false impression after false impression in order to try to belittle me for questioning Darwinism. But all of that does not change the fact that Evolution is not a fact.

    Eelco, you come over as somewhat confused.

    Firstly, you are waffling to try to obscure the fundamental contradiction in your thinking.

    In your last post you speak of ‘a certainty of the type that you want: absolute certainty, something conclusive’; by which I take it you mean something commonly referred to as ‘a fact’.

    Yes indeed, when you say that ‘evolution is a basic fact of science’, I take it you mean that it is certain and conclusive. But at the same time you seem to be trying to argue that you don’t mean ‘fact’ as in ‘fact’; when you say ‘fact’ you don’t mean ‘fact’ as in ‘certain and conclusive’, you mean ‘fact’ as in ‘underlying assumption’.

    But the basic point remains that if you assert ‘nothing is certain in science’, then you cannot call Evolution a fact. If something is not certain, then it cannot be called a fact. It’s really straightforward, but you demonstrate the usual Evolutionists equivocation
    and dissembling in order to try to disguise the fact that in reality you know Evolution is not a fact but you will call it one anyway because it sounds better and its easier to appear robust in argument that way.

    But, quite apart from that, although you say ‘nothing is certain in science’, actually there is much in science that is certain. Even I could demonstrate this to be the case by taking a ball into a clear area; if throw the ball upwards 100 times, I am certain that unhindered in its natural course it will drop back down 100 times. 100% certain. Just one example of many I could give. Some food for thought.

    You grandly assert I simply ignore the enormous body of evidence for evolution, but actually what I ignore, for the benefit of free and clear thought, is the enormous body of Evolutionist theoretical postulation. And Biblical Creationism is actually supported by evidence. Not least, for example, the general stasis of forms evident in the fossil record; or the fact that many geologic forms are better explained by the Biblical Creationist model; or the fact that if you observe the living world, the recognition that kind only reproduce after their own kind better reflects the evidence than the idea that anything could alter into anything given enough time.

    And you fail to understand the distinction between science and assumption. Biblical Creationism is a framework, an assumption, within which to interpret data. Just as is the philosophy of Naturalism, which asserts Nature is all. You have your bizarre belief in the absurd fables of Naturalism, I have faith in the eternal God who historically revealed himself to man in his son Jesus Christ. But science is a matter of the empirical study of natural phenomena. And the evidence best fits the Biblical Creationist framework.

    But, continuing, I did not say that you ‘do not question evolution with contrary evidence, but only with mere assertion and third-hand quotations’, because actually that was something Olorin said to me in his last post when he said: ‘unlike a scientist, you do not question it with contrary evidence, but only with mere assertion and third-hand quotations.’ You appear confused about what you are reading.

    But, in truth many scientists do question evolution because of the scientific evidence. Reading via the links provided above will show this clearly. And it is true that in the real world more and more people are realising that Darwin was fundamentally incorrect in his historic idea.

    I suggested you get agitated about my questioning Darwin’s theory, not about what I believe. That’s a straw man argument. And I said nothing about your ability as a scientist either. Two straw men.

    But without doubt, it is extremely misleading to suggest Evolution is a well-tested theory that shows man and apes had a common ancestor. It has never been shown that man and apes had a common ancestor.

    And if you are not interested in winning an argument, then why start one? But if you are interested in learning something, then perhaps you might benefit from beginning to critically question the validity of your Naturalistic assumptions, as can be seen via one of the links above that did Randall Niles successfully did.

    Altogether, Olorin and Eelco, I suggest there is little to be gained continuing here. Unless either one of you can really show man and apes had common ancestry. Which you cannot, because the assertion that they had a common ancestry is Evolutionist assumption, not fact. And the two are different things. Something evident to many people, if not Evolutionists.

  15. Dom says: “… but there is in fact a lot of evidence against Evolution; scientific, mathematical and logical. And genetic too. But it gets dismissed by people who will dogmatically refuse to acknowledge any challenge to their theory.”

    This is very insulting, and I indeed take this as an insult. I do not have ANY dogma’s whatsoever. If there is REAL evidence against the theory of evolution, I would be exited and would happily dismiss the current theory of evolution. But there *is* no good evidence against evolution – in fact, there is an aweful lot of evidence *for* evolution, which you simply seem to want to ignore altogether. That is very annoying, and dishonest.

    The nature of science is such that if a new theory has any merit, lots of scientist would jump to the challenge to get this new theory into good shape, and go for something like the Nobel prize. Obviously, as lots of scientists (including myself) are ambitious.

    Then of course you call me confused, and say that I waffle. Well thanks, such insults are very convincing. You still do not want to see the difference between the fact of evolution (what is observed), and the theory of evolution.

    Dom: “In your last post you speak of ‘a certainty of the type that you want: absolute certainty, something conclusive’; by which I take it you mean something commonly referred to as ‘a fact’.

    No I do not. Look up ‘scientific fact’ on wikipedia or something like that. And ‘scientific theory’.
    Wikipedia puts it quite nicely:
    “In the most basic sense, a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation; in contrast with a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.”

    YOU do not want theories, but some kind of absolute certainty. Which science cannot offer (I’ve said this before).

    And then you go on and on about certainty. Yes, nothing in science is 100% certain. But usually we are happy with 99% certainty, or some number close to 100%. There is some threshold where we call certain observations ‘certain’, and the observations showing that evolution has happened are ‘certain enough’ for me.

    Even your ball game does not need to produce a 100% certain outcome: although it will be very very very close to 100%. You ‘if unhindered in its natural course’ does not make it a natural experiment, as you cannot rule out passing black holes etc. (this is rather pathetic, but so is your whole example, as you would not refute the theory of gravity anyway).

    It is NOT misleading to say that evolution is a well-tested theory, because that’s what it is. This does not mean it will stay like it is, as new data *might* come in that really challenges the theory (hasn’t happened so far).

    As for common ancestry: lots and lots of DNA evidence. Read Sean B. Carroll’s book, which I am not going to repeat here. So you do not even need fossils to show this. To me common ancestry is 99.9% certain as a scientific fact. If that is not good enough for you, then that is just too bad for you.

    Dom: “You have your bizarre belief in the absurd fables of Naturalism, …”

    Yet more insults. I have no belief. Science is not a religion.

    I think I like Michael an aweful lot better than you, and I do not think you do him any favours posting on his blog. But you are free to do so, obviously.

    And I am not going to return insults. As long as you do not force me to acknowledge that there is any sense in what you are saying, you can say whatever you want, and so can I.

  16. Eelco, I’m sorry you’re getting so hot under the collar, and I’m sorry you’re taking my statements as insults. But you have to realise that to many it is very evident that Evolutionary theory is defended by the dogma of Naturalistic philosophy. Only natural explanations acceptable? Dogmatic presupposition.

    And there is plenty of real evidence against Evolutionary theory, in fields pertaining to information theory, the fossil record, biology, geology and genetics. But are you really interested? Evolutionists generally are simply not interested. The arguments against an Evolutionary view of life are so strong it is remarkable to observe how Evolutionists cling to their nebulous, ever-morphing idea in spite of them all, relying only on fanciful speculation.

    For example, it is a universally identifiable principle that organic life only comes from organic life; a natural law of biogenesis. Yet Evolutionary theory depends on the idea of abiogenesis to support its naturalistic predisposition. The theory, I repeat, depends upon an idea that is contrary to observable natural law.

    Another example: the fossil record still fails to show transitional forms required by a theory asserting common ancestry of all living things. Or, to put it another way, there is no actual record of Evolution having occurred; but if it had occurred, it should be recorded in great detail, i.e. everywhere, because it claims to be an explanation of how ALL life has progressed. But even when Evolutionists admit this they refuse to admit they are admitting it. How doggedly dogmatic can you get? –

    I’m sorry if you get insulted when I say Evolutionists dogmatically refuse to acknowledge any challenge to their theory, but it is blatantly obviously the case, commonly evidenced, that Evolutionists refuse to recognise valid arguments against Evolutionary theory purely on the grounds that the arguments contradict Evolutionary theory. The theory is upheld against the evidence.

    And we seem now to be beginning to go in small circles here. I have already replied to your assertion that I ignore the enormous body of evidence for Evolution by pointing out that what I actually ignore is the enormous body of Evolutionist theoretical postulation. That might annoy you, and it evidently does, but it is entirely an entirely honest position. Once one removes the speculative postulation from the equation then there actually exists no real, substantive proof of common ancestry of life on Earth.

    Your idea of scientists ready to leap on any new theory with merit is at odds with the history of science which has shown that generally scientists find it extremely difficult to move from paradigm to paradigm and are commonly loathe to admit of problems to widely held and deeply cherished ideas.

    And yes, I did indeed point out that you are confused. I’m sorry the observation insults you, but it is perfectly obvious that you are confused.

    And now you assert I ‘do not want to see the difference between the fact of evolution (what is observed), and the theory of evolution’. But I understand entirely the distinction between theory and fact; it is you who is having trouble identifying that distinction. The reality is that what is observed does not demonstrate common ancestry of all life on Earth. Thus Evolution is not a fact but a theory.

    Dom: “In your last post you speak of ‘a certainty of the type that you want: absolute certainty, something conclusive’; by which I take it you mean something commonly referred to as ‘a fact’.

    Using your own quote from Wikipedia: ‘a scientific fact is an objective and verifiable observation’; but Evolution is not an objective and verifiable observation, thus even by your own criteria it is not a fact.

    Evolution is ‘a hypothesis or theory, which is intended to explain or interpret facts.’

    Do YOU understand the difference between fact and theory?

    And you are wrong again, Eelco. I do not have a problem with theories, and Biblical Creationists work with them all the time, but theories which bear no correspondence to observable phenomena and which are contradicted by scientific fact I find to be pretentious when claiming to be scientific in nature.

    The fact you claim there exist observations showing Evolution has happened again shows just how confused about the difference between fact and theory you are. Evolutionists cannot prove a single distinctive part of their theory has ever in reality actually occurred. But for you, I know, the assumption it has occurred is sufficient.

    Concerning the example of throwing the ball up, I can assure you, whether or not you think it need produce a 100% certain outcome, it will produce exactly that. And will produce exactly that every time if I repeated the same experiment every day for a year. It is perfectly legitimate to set boundaries on the experiment, and requiring the ball be unhindered in its natural course is perfectly acceptable because the object of the experiment is to determine the effect of gravity on a thrown object, but if the object is hindered in its natural course, then that will affect the parameters of the experiment. And contrary to your assertion otherwise, actually I can confidently rule out passing black holes.

    I suppose the major difference to our approach to the experiment is that I would be conducting mine in the real world, whereas in your world the Cheshire Cat from Alice in Wonderland might appear and boot the ball into orbit around an as of yet undiscovered planet in our solar system made of raspberry jam. I mean, hey, who knows what could happen, man!

    Even you admit your citing a passing black hole is rather pathetic. But my example is sound. And I point out I am not aiming to refute the theory of gravity; I am aiming to indicate how certain of something science can make a person.

    But I fear you are too deeply embedded in a parallel universe where sausages rule with an iron paw and aubergines are the only means of communication between normal porridge. You assert new data has not been found to really challenge evolutionary theory. You are always very welcome to investigate the real world should you wish to do so, Eelco.

    And I repeat, just in case you are able to hear: DNA evidence does not corroborate the Evolutionist morphologically derived tree of life. I repeat, does not corroborate.

    As to why you feel insulted by my identifying your belief in the fables of Naturalism that is up to you. You seem offended by the very idea of belief. But you certainly do believe in such fables, don’t you? The Big Bang? Abiogenesis? Men from apes?

    You are correct that science is not a religion. And nor is it Naturalism, which is a philosophy. Science is the empirical study of physical phenomena. Whether you interpret the data via the framework of Naturalistic philosophy or Biblical Creationism is another matter. But the latter better fits the evidence.

    You say, ‘I think I like Michael an awful lot better than you’ to which I can really only reply: nah-naah-nah-nah-naah! Oh why can’t I like Michael as much as you?! Oh, you’re just so nasty and mean!! I’m going to run away and cry!

    You think I do him no favours commenting here? Oh how very protective of him you are. Well, I’ll just have to skip away and find myself another friend then! Nah-naah-nah-nah-naah!

    But actually I think it’s up to Michael, not you, who is and who is not free to comment here. And yes, it seems, Michael even allows us Biblical Creationists to comment too. Crazy ol’ world out here on the internet, huh? I know you Evolutionists normally don’t appreciate anyone having the opportunity to question the validity of your grand assertions; but think of it like this, you can run from free and rational thought but you can’t stop it chasing after you. Hope that helps. Meanwhile, I am very aware you will not acknowledge the sense of what I’m saying. But its okay, I’m not going to try to force you to do anything. I can’t, can I? And I wouldn’t. I’m just pointing out that it has never been shown that man and apes had a common ancestor.

  17. @Dom:
    It has been shown many many times that man and apes have a common ancestor, and in fact all animals (if you go back in time far enough) have a common ancestor at some point.

    Your refusal to read up on this is very telling.

    As for your ball experiment (I am an astrophycisist, after all): you cannot rule out black holes passing by. The chances are (astronomically slim), but not 0%. This is a pathetic point, but then again your experiment is pathetic. You want the ball to travel ‘unhindered’. So why is the gravity of Earth not hindering the ball then ? Unhindered would be a ball in an (hypothetical) empty universe, with no matter and no gravity at all (except for the ball, then).

    Again, I can only say that you have no idea what the difference between facts and theories are. Are you a scientist ? Obvisouly not, I’d guess. Observed (scientific !) facts are described by theories. The facts of evolution are described by the theory of evolution. You can discuss the latter, but not the first (unless all scientists collectively screwed up the observations, or are lying throw their teeth: it is all a hoax).
    And again, evolution is an observed scientific fact: read the literature. The book by Carroll is a good starting point, but certainly not all.

    I’m sorry, but you can shout whatever you like, and insult as well, but the evidence speaks for itself. The evidence shouts even, to be a little poetic.

    Your statements about the lack of a fossil record are also very wrong indeed. Ever read Donald Prothero’s book ? Brimming with transitional fossils !

    Finally, evolution is NOT defended by any dogma. It is a scientific theory, falsifiable and all. And it works very well, so far.

  18. Eelco, you are simply going round in very small circles already. You are simply reiterating the theory, but that does not make it fact. The reality is that it has never been shown man and apes share common ancestry, or that all animals share it.

    I have actually read up on the matter, and will continue to do so. And I am aware Darwinism is fatuous. So how telling is that? And I am aware that there is a huge difference between the facts of the matter and Evolutionist theory about those facts. And I am aware that even some Evolutionists admit common ancestry of man and apes has not been shown. You though, like most Evolutionists, simply refuse to admit it or are unable to distinguish between fact and speculation. Which you ably demonstrate by speaking of the ‘facts of evolution’. Can you name one single ‘fact of evolution’, as you call it? One fact which demonstrates common ancestry of all living organisms?

    And although you effortlessly present the usual propaganda that ‘all scientists’ agree with the theory of evolution, let me reiterate that not all scientists do. You can ignore that fact as much as you like, but it will not go away. There’s no doubt Evolutionism is currently the prevailing scientific paradigm but neither its popularity nor its vitriolic defence means it is true. You are either unaware or unable to admit of the huge uncertainty surrounding the scientific data even amongst Evolutionists themselves. Because the evidence does not tell the Evolutionist story, and evolutionists are reliant instead upon speculation, theory and presumption.

    I myself am not shouting, but it is you is getting yourself all bothered and insulted. Perhaps you ought to consider having a more critical approach to what you are told instead of just believing what ever any Tom, Dick or Harry tells you. But I suspect such an idea is actually repugnant to you because you could not face the possibility of facing up to the fact that what you assert is a diet of sturdy facts is actually nothing more than idle speculation, sloppy presumption and propaganda.

    And my statements about the fossil record are correct. No matter how ardently you maintain the party line.

    Thank-you for your book recommendation, I will try to read it when I can. I enjoy reading Evolutionists work because it’s always useful to have examples of where Evolutionists confuse fact with speculation. And if Prothero’s book is brimming with such examples it should prove very useful indeed.

    For Evolutionism is indeed defended dogmatically. Even when the evidence refutes Evolutionism, Evolutionists refuse to denounce their cherished idea because they are dogmatically committed to the idea of common ancestry. You are correct that it is a theory, but it is hardly scientific in nature, more philosophical. And it doesn’t work at all; otherwise it would accurately describe the living world. But it doesn’t, it fails miserably, that why it has to be changed every now and then. Like the tree of life which is now not the tree of life. Fact? Hardly!

    As for the thrown ball, you really are struggling with that one, aren’t you?

    Firstly, you are quite wrong; I can indeed rule out passing black holes; completely, certainly and emphatically. Partly because black holes don’t pass by here during the summertime; partly because I am not experimenting on the effect of black holes on a thrown ball; and partly because I am imagining throwing my ball in the real world.

    Secondly, the effect of gravity on the ball contributes to determining its natural course because the local effect of gravity is part of the ball’s natural environment.

    My example is perfectly sound. You are missing the point of my simple illustration, and trying to unnecessarily over-complicate it by devising various pointless, unreal problems.

    Your idea of an empty universe with no matter and no gravity would not equate to the ball being unhindered, because in a universe with no matter there could exist no ball, and a universe with no matter and no gravity could not exist. You simply posit poppycock. For an astrophysicist you seem to have no real grasp of astrophysics. If that’s your grasp of your area of expertise I dread to think of how loose you can play with other areas of science. If you do not know the basics of your own area of expertise then why should I or anyone else give any credence to your views about other areas?

    You merely demonstrate exactly how much at home with nebulous, self-indulgent and pointless fantasy you are. As an Evolutionist I know how useful that way of thinking can be for you, but in the real world science deals with facts concerning a universe constrained by natural laws. My point was to show that some things in science are certain. Your point seems to be that you can imagine whatever you like and call it science.

    It has never been shown that man and apes share a common ancestry. Some of the links I have given above provide useful starters to investigate this, with articles and books which address the Evolutionary speculation and dubious argumentation.

    I know you are not interested in critical assessment of the facts; but some of us still think its worth pointing out the fact from the fiction.

  19. Well, that is one piece of insulting and aggressive text … I am merely indulging in propaganda ? That is very insulting indeed, and I do not take that lightly. I am an independent thinker, whatever you may think of me, and I have made up my mind quite independently, after reading many books, and some actual literature (Nature papers and the like). And I have not said that ‘all scientists’ argee with evolution, but by far the majority. That is not the same. Science always has people of different opinions, which is just fine.

    You can say that “I am not interested in critical assessment of the facts”, but that is again just an insult. I am interested in that, and that is what I do as a scientist, a professional one even. What *would* I be interested in then ? Some hidden agenda ?
    “nebulous, self-indulgent and pointless fantasy” ? That’s just rubbish.

    And then you claim I have no idea about astrophysics ? I do not now even the basics of my field ? Of course I do. You deliberately misinterpret my arguments about an empty universe: I was quite clear there that this was hypothetically empty, except for the ball. Can you actually read ? This is a perfectly normal way of thinking in science, even though it might not get you anywhere. Your ball does not travel unhindered anyway, and passing black holes do not have 0% probability. It might be 10 to the power of -100, or whatever small number you want to put, but it is not zero. That is pathetic, but so is your experiment, which merely shows that the theory of gravity works well. But we are never 100% certain of the outcome of your experiment. If you do not like a black hole (which do exist) passing by, then think about meteorites, satellites dropping back to the earth, whatever. This will happen very rarely indeed, so for most people 99.9999% or whatever is just fine for them to believe that your little theory (“the ball will always fall back to the ground”) is valid. This is true for the theory of evolution as well. It certainly is not 100% certain, but pretty close to that.

    “Your point seems to be that you can imagine whatever you like and call it science.”. That is complete rubbish, and I have never said that. Do not put words in my mouth.

    As for your general tone of your writing: this is very aggressive indeed, not scientific, and indeed insulting. And you willfully ignore the evidence available. I think I am wasting my time on you. So therefore I am *not* going to repeat earlier statements anymore. *You* are going around in small circles, not me. I merely point out the obvious. Your ‘reality’ is not mine, and not shared by the great majority of scientists. Fine, but do not call it ‘the’ reality. That is plain arrogant.

    But I am not going to convince you anyway: I’m only writing this for other readers of this blog (not many, I think).

  20. Eelco, I think my post is direct and robust, but hardly insulting and aggressive. I guess you are either not used to debate or just cannot take anyone disagreeing with you. And certainly you are indulging in propaganda by suggesting, as you did, that all scientists agree with Evolutionism.

    You said – “The facts of evolution are described by the theory of evolution. You can discuss the latter, but not the first (unless all scientists collectively screwed up the observations, or are lying throw their teeth: it is all a hoax).”

    “All scientists.”

    You now assert – “I have not said that ‘all scientists’ agree with evolution, but by far the majority.”

    But that is simply not true, Eelco. You did not say ‘the majority’, you said ‘all’ – “unless all scientists collectively.”

    I pointed out it is not true that all scientists subscribe to Evolutionism, and now you deny what you have written in the previous post. You cannot bring yourself to be honest even about that? Why not just admit you presented a false impression?

    You be very insulted and take it not lightly as you will; but just because you get in a strop when you are caught giving a misleading impression does not mean everyone has to indulge your over-sensitive ego. Some of us do not take issues of truth lightly. we are all susceptible to being unclear in the way we say something, but clarity and honesty is essential is debating important topics, and it is surely better just to put one’s hands up and say, ‘Sorry, that was incorrect’, rather than try to cover it up by pretending you never said it.

    But I have to say it is indeed evident you are not really interested in critical assessment of the facts. You seem to get in a huge huff at the mere suggestion that Evolutionary theory is not a fact.

    I did not at all misinterpret your argument about a hypothetical universe with no matter or gravity. I merely pointed out that it is a ridiculous and pointless hypothesis. As any astrophysicist should know. And listen, Eelco, you yourself described the whole passing black hole thing as pathetic, so why not just stop trying to argue it? You’re just showing yourself to be obstinate beyond reason. And not particularly lucid either. You list black holes along with ‘meteorites, satellites dropping back to the earth, whatever’, but falling satellites can hardly be considered natural phenomena, and if one of these struck the ball then that would constitute the ball being hindered in its natural course.

    And although your 99.9999% argument might sound superficially impressive, in mathematics there is a point at which if something is calculated to be improbable beyond it ever being possible to consider it being a probability it is then described as impossible. This is why some Evolutionists have come embrace what is often called ‘panspermia’, the idea that life on Earth originated from elsewhere in the universe. It is an indulgent, illogical and evasive idea, but it has gained credence with Evolutionists who realise that mathematics concludes the Naturalistic idea of life beginning by accident on Earth to be impossible.

    My point being, your mathematics concerning the thrown ball illustration might be convenient for your imagination, but do not necessarily constitute a reliable projection of might or might not happen. Certainly, the likelihood of a black hole passing is not ‘whatever small number’ I want it to be. Probabilities are calculated with a far greater demand for accuracy than that. And the mere fact you equate the probabilities of black holes, meteorites and falling satellites indicates you are not really concerned with any realistic concerns about what is probable, improbable or impossible. You are merely concerned to apply an unnecessary philosophical uncertainty to an experiment which does not require it.

    Of your suggested possibilities affecting the experiment, a black hole just passing by I reject as impossible; and the falling satellite I reject as violating the parameters of the experiment, being that, as I have said, it would constitute the ball being hindered in its natural course. I concede the theoretical possibility a falling meteorite might strike the ball, but I view that as so unlikely as to be negligible, which is say, as not worth considering.

    Theory, if it is to be considered scientific in nature, has to correspond with verifiable physical reality, or else it becomes of no real use; it becomes merely pseudo-intellectual fanciful indulgence. And in applying any theoretical uncertainty, it has to be applied realistically. In reality, it is a certainty that the ball, unhindered in its natural course, will drop back down 100 times out of a hundred. Why? Because it is subject to the natural laws that govern the universe.

    As I say, you can imagine whatever you like, but that doesn’t make it science.
    And my describing your thought process does not constitute putting words into your mouth. And my general tone is robust but I think calling it aggressive is a little melodramatic on your part. And I am curious whether you think Evolutionists are ever aggressive and insulting in tone? Richard Dawkins, for example?

    But you are wrong, I do not wilfully ignore the evidence. And no matter how many times you repeat the accusation, your repeating and repeating it will not make change it into a fact. I critically assess the evidence without the hindrance of Evolutionary theory. And that is very different; and, I might add, highly recommended in the pursuit of free and rational thought.

    So, thank-you, I would certainly appreciate your not merely repeating the same points tedium ad infinitum. It is much preferable to review a counter argument rather than just ignore what people say, which is hardly the way to make any progress in a debate.

    But, if it helps you feel any better, I can tell you that your behaviour is perfectly normal for an Evolutionist. As is your accusation that I am the one going round in small circles. Far from pointing out the obvious, all you have been able to do is repeat the party line: ‘Evolution is a fact, Evolution is a fact, Evolution is a fact.’ But in reality it is your assumption Evolution occurred which you confuse with fact. I know you hate your Darwinian assumption being challenged, but what you have to realise is that your assumption does not constitute reality just because it is your assumption.

    You call me arrogant because I call my reality ‘the’ reality, but actually it is you who does that, not me. You really seem to call me arrogant because I challenge Darwinism. But I am allowed to question your assumption; that does not make me arrogant, it makes me free to question your assumption. And I think it is essential that people do question the Darwinian assumption because it is supported by smoke-screen, logical fallacy and condescending intimidation rather than any basis in scientific data.

    Remember, majority does not in itself constitute truth.

    And neither does your assumption that man and apes share common ancestry.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s