Evolutionary History In Its Latest Hype

After telling a story about how Neandertal Man could only communicate with grunts, and who was supposedly unable to make clothes to wear and supposedly had very low intelligence and was a different species than modern man, was found to be advance and intermarried with modern humans. DNA revealed, modern humans and Neandertals hardly differ at all, also modern humans and Neandertals differ from the chimps in virtually identical ways!

This is not all, another supposed precursor to modern humans with only primitive ability has been falsified. Homo Erectus was found to have advanced toolmaking abilities. Like Neandertals, Homo Erectus interbred with modern humans which means they are members of the same species. Another aspect complicates the whole evolutionary story about Homo Erectus. Only discovering the tools in Africa and finding none in Asia, suggesting that somehow the technology was lost while migrating. It’s a small problem compared to discovering interbreeding going on with modern humans at a massive scale. Like Neadertals, they are human like you and me.

With early evolutionary history taking such hits with recent discoveries, the media decided to hype another “missing link” or “transitional form” by saying this will rewrite our evolution with a better understanding. Really? More questions than answers has been a pattern in evolutionary research. Now we see, Australopithecus sediba is put into the lime light. Wait, hasn’t this been reported on before? Yep! Media outlets Live ScienceNational Geographic and Science Daily. In fact, Science Daily’s headlines went like this, “New Hominid Shares Traits With Homo Species: Fossil Find Sheds Light On the Transition to Homo Genus from Earlier Hominids.” 

With all this hype, there was much controversy between other experts and those who made the discovery. Scientists were at odds with each other on whether or not the bones were buried together, or fell through to other levels after burial. Also things like taxonomy where scientists disagree on whether it should be classified as Australopithecus or Homo. If classified a “Homo” there would be no impact on the story of human evolution.

So fast forward more than a year later. You have most scientists in this field not liking  the term “missing link,” preferring instead the terms “transition [sic] form” or “intermediary form,” because it implies more firmly that they are there but just haven’t been discovered yet. In reality, there is no difference.  All of a sudden this discovery is promised to answer numerous questions about human evolution. Again, it’s just hype. Actually it continues to raise more questions than answers. The size of the brain seems to be one of the major problems, you see, size is important in evolutionary history. Evolutionists expect to see brain sizes increasing, with toolmaking ability (no tools were found), and changes in hands and feet.

The confusion about the fossil rather than a clear-cut analysis only suggests reasons from those researchers, why they remain working in this field. “Berger says it’s not surprising that the fossil is a confusing mixture, pointing out that that is exactly what we would expect in a transitional fossil.” We know the hype in these publications is used to sell to readers, also to promote evolution, but many in the public do not accept the story. Like the other two, this latest hype will be another disappointment of early evolutionary human history but not for creationism, variants within a kind.


15 thoughts on “Evolutionary History In Its Latest Hype

  1. “Scientists were at odds with each other …”

    No !!! Terrible !!! That never ever happens, right, Michael ?
    People should never disagree. We should all just belief you.

  2. Oh no. Michael has done it again. He has single-handedly falsified evolution with yet another fact-free analysis. I am lost and will burn in hell for accepting evolution, and for not believing in the absurd truth that the earth is 6,000 years old, and that light speed of stars is giving us light that has never existed because it is all millions of years old, but since the universe is yet only 6,000 years old, that light did not exist when it came to be.

    I smell the smoke of hell. Oh, no. I’m burning. Ahhhhhhhh!!!

  3. Eelco,

    Evolution is bad for science research. It’s complexity entails nothing but foolishness. Here these researchers and the media in particular claiming humans had evolved after Sediba when in fact you have things like Tanzanian Laetoli tracks that were proved to be human foot prints dated when? Yep over 3 million years ago, well before Sediba’s assumed time frame of less than 2 million years. No, its not the fact they disagree, but the interpretation of data. Since there is no disagreement with the time frame with both discoveries among evolutionists than it would be impossible to conclude that Sediba is the first. But if you are able to make up stuff and call it science what does it matter?

    One of the most looney conclusions in evolutionary research came from discovering feathers in amber found in Canada, just recently. Even the paper in science admits, “There is currently no way to refer the feathers in amber with certainty to either birds or the rare small theropods from the area.” Yet, the researchers and many media outlets claim this was dino to bird evolution…lol. Science daily headlines, “Tree Resin Captures Evolution of Feathers On Dinosaurs and Birds.” Have researchers discovered feathers on dinosaurs anywhere in the world with increasing in complexity, from deep strata to shallower strata? Have they discovered any dinosaurs with feathers on them? How does finding feathers in amber be then assumed to be dino to bird evolution? Why did this paper get published in the first place? Because its based on evolution?

    Who owned those feathers is merely conjecture. It’s like saying Eelco was the owner of those feathers, well how do you know Eelco was the owner? You don’t because its nothing more than a crazy story that is passed as science which is so laughable its unreal. This is another reason why evolution is bad for science. When research focuses on designs of nature and just doesn’t go off into story telling land, that is what I call science!

  4. That is a very sad, reply, Michael.

    The theory of evolution is science, whether you think it is right or wrong. You can claim it is bad science (most scientists will disagree strongly, including myself), but not bad for science. That just shows you have no idea how science works. Again.

  5. Please pardon the slow response. Hospitalized for a heart problem.

    This is not all, another supposed precursor to modern humans with only primitive ability has been falsified. Homo Erectus was found to have advanced toolmaking abilities. Like Neandertals, Homo Erectus interbred with modern humans which means they are members of the same species. Another aspect complicates the whole evolutionary story about Homo Erectus. Only discovering the tools in Africa and finding none in Asia, suggesting that somehow the technology was lost while migrating.

    Yet another post with factual inaccuracies and misleading interpretations. The above sample is representative.

    >> Sorry, Homo erectus did not have “advanced” tool-making capability. Only primitive stone choppers have been found with H. erectus, and none of the diverse and more advanced Acheulean technology Certainly nothing remotely similar to Neandertals’.

    >> A 2001 study of Y chromosomes found no interbreeding at all between H. erectus and H. sapiens. The large sample size (12,127) of Asian males gives this result a very high confidence level.

    >> Finding tools in Africa but not Asia reveals that Michael makes several unwarranted assumptions. First, that the migration was from Africa to Asia—Many paleontologists believe that the migration went the other way. Second, the time span of H. erectus was almost a million years. Even if the migration was out of Africa, the African H. erectus could have started using tools after the migration had taken place, so that the Asians never had the tools to begin with. (The Asian fossils are actually some of the oldest H. erectus found thus far.) Third, the tools may have belonged to H. ergaster, the successor to H. erectus.

    Another instance of creationist reckless disregard for truth. Michael concocts a story that he wishes were true, then bends the facts to fit, or merely makes things up out of thin air. This is why scientists laugh at creationists.

  6. In this post, and in his comment, Michael reveals a profound misunderstanding of the entire concept of how evolution occurs.

    He is trapped into the paradigm of design, and cannot free himself from several concepts that may be appropriate to creation, but are not true of evolution. This results not so much from ignorance as from an inability to see anything from a different perspective—what historians call the “whiggism fallacy.”

    One of Michael’s major mental roadblocks is that he is constrained to see the fossil record as a single line of species culminating at Homo sapiens: Sahelanthropus tchadensis begat Ardipithecus ramidus; which begat Australopithecus afarensis which begat Paranthropus boisei, which begat Homo habilis, and so on, just like the genealogies in the Bible.

    But this is not what paleontology tells us. The fossils that we can recover usually are dead-end branches of the lineage that eventually became Homo sapiens. Suppose we traveled to Michael’s parents’ home town of East Overshoe, and started digging randomly in the graveyard for his ancestors. We might possibly come up with a fossil of Michael’s great-grandfather, but is is much more likely that we’ll find a third cousin twice removed. And we don’t know that, because the fossil we found does look vaguely human.

    No, human ancestry is not a single line leading inexorably to us. It is a tangle of related species: “The Human Family Tree Has Become a Bush With Many Branches”. And ALL of the branches in the Homo genus have FAILED, except for Home sapiens sapiens.


    Michael has another major problem with the concept of “species.” He is constrained to the biblical perspective of “kinds” of animals that were created separately, and remain forever immutable. Evolution, of course, does not work that way. If we seek to distinguish modern species, we look primarily to breeding populations—species are separate if they do not or cannot interbreed. But what are the boundaries between extinct species?

    Paleontologists have developed bundles of slight structural differences which they believe represent transitions: cranial size, breadth of pelvis, relative length of thumbs, facial angles brow ridges, and many more. But, as opposed to the biblical view, there is no magic in these differences. In fact, evolution usually proceeds in a mosaic fashion, so a more “primitive” foot arch may appear with more “advanced” facial planes. This is not a defect of evolution—it represents a defect of our classification system. So when new evidence is found, the species definitions change.[1] And there is usually disagreement about how the species should be defined.

    For non-human animals, each genus comprises many extant species. Therefore, genetic analysis can resolve relationships which were not clear—or just plain wrong—from structural comparisons. However, our genus, Homo, has been spectacularly unsuccessful. Every species but ours has died out, so genetic comparisons are all but impossible.[2]


    Michael’s blinders about evolution extend to other facets as well. But again, his is not fundamentally a problem with ignorance of the facts. Rather, it is a case of “there are none so blind as those who will not see.” Like a cave man trying to understand an internal combustion engine according to the principles of stone axes, Michael attempts to analyze evolution in biblical terms.

    I’ve proposed this simple question before as a test of whether Michael can understand evolutionary concepts. Here it is again: (a) The woman who is now mitochondrial Eve is not the same woman who was mitochondrial Eve 10,000 years ago. Explain how this happens. (b) The man who was Y-chromosome Adam lived many thousands of years after mitochondrial Eve. Explain how this can be correct.

    Of course, Michael will duck this one, as he always has in the past.


    [1] Linnaeus’ taxonomy was based upon (his idea of) how God had divided up the kinds of plants and animals. In many cases, he was wrong. Or God was wrong. He grouped together organisms with similar appearance which are only distantly related.

    [2] Neandertals and the Hobbits apparently only 30,000 years ago. Obviously, Neandertal DNA has turned up some surprises recently. But the earlier species, and the whole genus of Arditpithicus, Australopithecus, and others is probably forever beyond reach. So the modern tools are not available for them.

  7. The wingnut Republican candidates are behaving stupidly again today.

    The difference between Rick Perry and Michelle Bachmann is that Perry knows he’s lying.

    Which is worse is hard to tell.

  8. @Olorin

    I think Rick Perry may have damaged himself nationally with the “Social Security is a ‘ponzi scheme'” statement. His poll numbers are now sliding in a head to head contest with Obama. Come to think about it, Mitt Romney does better against Obama than Perry does, though Perry is still ahead of him for the nomination. — I’m more sympathetic to Romney… Through his faults, and he has plenty, I think he’s less of a cowbow than Perry. I can’t help but see Perry as just another version of George W. Bush… So I guess Romney wins by default with me.

    Michele Bachmann seems to no longer be a threat, thank God. She really frightened me after she signed that pledge with racist language in it. Her getting the nomination is a sure way for me to vote for Barack Obama next year. — I have NOT gotten the “ABO” (Anybody-But-Obama) bandwagon, as much as I would love to vote against him. The advantage Obama has over Bachmann is this: At least he isn’t crazy.

    But hey, at least Bachmann sure gave us a good laugh with her conspiracy theory about a vaccine causing mental retardation. That is sure in a long list she has given us; not least of all was also how to “pray away the gay.”

  9. The political cartoon in our newspaper this morning shows Bachmann in the gondola of a balloon that is being punctured by hypodermic needles. She says, “See? I told you vaccines are dangerous!”

  10. Olorin, you say, “Yet another post with factual inaccuracies and misleading interpretations. The above sample is representative.”Science changes, that was a 2001 study, other research has been done. Michael Hammer published in PNAS now asserts that Homo erectus and modern humans interbred. Physorg put it this way, “It looks like our lineage has always exchanged genes with their more morphologically diverged neighbors.” Interbreeding means their are members of the same species.

    “Interbreeding between modern humans and their more archaic relatives apparently didn’t begin with encounters with the Neanderthals in Eurasia.”

    -Popular Archaeology

    There have been stories on this between Sept 5 and 6, 2011. This is an error on your part.

  11. @Michael,

    This post is completely irrelevant. Breeding with another species does NOT indicate the two species really belong to the same.

    Besides, in your answer to Olorin….If you are going to cite a scientific paper, please do the favor of actually citing the actual paper instead of a condensed news article:

    The summary actual paper: http://www.pnas.org/content/108/37/15123.abstract?sid=ce5e3f7a-98b4-4bdf-ae5a-8ec5c5ef6ea5

    Now again…even if the paper’s conclusions are correct (which they may be), it is irrelevant. This would not make Homo Erectus, Homo Heidelbergensis, and Homo Neanderthalensis the same species as us. After all, that is NOT how a species is defined. — There are very valid differences between OUR species and Homo Erectus which, for example, disqualifies the two from being the same species. A good example of such a difference is speech: We now know that Homo erectus may have had the beginnings of the PHYSICAL capability to speak, HOWEVER we also know from other physical evidence that it LACKED the MENTAL capacity.

  12. Michael Hammer published in PNAS now asserts that Homo erectus and modern humans interbred.


    This is an error on your part.

    No, Michael. It’s an error on your part. Yet another failure of reading comprehension.

    Does anyone still wonder why no one trusts creationists?

    The PNAS is not open access. However, even the abstract makes very clear that the “archaic humans” of the study were not Homo erectus.

    We realize that creationists have a hard time understanding large numbers, but this is ridiculous. Homo erectus seems to have disappeared about a million years ago. The interbreeding that Hammer reports occurred about 35,000 years ago. Do the math yourself.

    No error, Michael. There is no evidence that Homo erectus interbred with Homo sapiens—not in the set of circumstances addressed in the 2001 study, at least.


    Oh, by the way. The other noted errors still stand, as well. No advanced tools. No loss of technology. Reckless disregard for truth. But we have come to expect that.

  13. Michael makes much of supposed interbreeding between modern humans and their non-human relations in the past.

    But he should not be overly surprised. Humans have a proclivity toward sex with other species.

    The Bible tells us that.

  14. Olorin:

    Let’s thank Scribd.com for providing the full paper to the public..though there is no telling how long it will remain online:

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s