Can Science Prove Or Disprove The Existence of God?

Continuing with Anthropologist, Bruce Latimer’s assumption that the human body is not intelligently designed because we have things like sore feet which to him demonstrates that a designer would not have created a foot which would get sore. Previously, we went through how intelligent designed built machines eventually break down over time and have problems. This does not mean that those machines were not created with a mind!

We also went over how many negative mutations causes a loss in information which leads such things as aging, sickness and death much like human machines eventually run down and are not longer functional and the only way those machines could remain functional over time would be intelligent intervention!

Unlike  Anthropologist, Bruce Latimer’s assumption, operational science has revealed the human foot to be a marvel of engineering! The foot has arches and a series of bones which allows one to either pound the gridiron or balance tip-toed for hours. You would be absolutely amazed at the design features that are highly complex, integrated into tissue that know as to be bone!

The foot has not one but two arches that support the weight of the body and provide important leverage when walking. What keeps the structure and arrangement of the bones together is ligaments and tendons that form these arches. These arches are not rigid; they yield when weight is placed upon the foot and spring back when lifted.

The foot is what one would call the humblest member of man’s anatomy.  Its five toes is intelligently constructed with 26 separate bones of various sizes and shapes which bound together by a system. It has a complex array of muscles along with a supplied network of fibers and blood vessels. The different bones articulate in gliding joints, giving the foot a degree of elasticity and a limited amount of motion!

Just like steel cables enabling a bridge to carry up a certain amount of weight, likewise arches are held in place and supported by a complex network of strong muscles to carry the weight of the body. But the foot is even more complex than your average bridge. Would you say, the golden gate bridge evolved? Of course you wouldn’t! But Anthropologist, Bruce Latimer would assume a more intricate mechanism such as the foot did because he thinks someone could design it without a person getting a sore foot!

The design of the foot has been reproduced billions of times in every human birth with exactly the same shape and form (barring any birth defects) with the exact same number of tendons and nerves.

We move on to one the most highly specialized and highly engineered parts of the human body and that is the brain! The brain has a massive amount of cells which everything is seemingly connected to everything else, these connections follow a plan based on purpose, an order that we are only scratching the surface in understanding!

The brain weighs about 3 pounds comprising 97 percent of the entire nervous system. The brain is connected to the upper end of the spinal cord.   The brain is divided into three main parts, one is the large cerebrum, he second being the smaller cerebrum, and the brain stem leading to the spinal cord. The brain has an incredible array of weaving strands (ten billion) known as neutrons. The neutrons defy description! You can’t find anything else in the universe that is more complex than the brain!

The whole mental process consists of neutrons transmitting specific chemicals between each other across gaps. As a result, each cell can communicate with every cell at incredible speeds. In just one cubic millimeter of the brain, there are on billion connections among the cells. What does that mean? It means there are 400 billion synaptic junctions in a gram of brain tissue! The total number rivals the stars in the universe, yet all those connections follow an orderly plan with purpose!

We see order and levels of organization in the human body. We see congruent patterns between cellular organelles and the body organs rather than a mindless process going through trial and error. Engineers use the same general principles in creating gears whether is just a watch or an automobile.

To Be Continued!

Paleoanthropologist Debunks His Colleagues

It was 50 years ago, when a Professor from the University of California, Berkeley, named Thomas Kuhn released a challenge to the scientific community that argued against the traditional view of science which was collecting facts that would lead to a greater understanding of nature. Rather, Kuhn believed scientific discovery relied on what questions scientists would ask, their philosophical commitments, and so on.

Kuhn also wrote about how a theory breaks down which involves many unsolved mysteries, or in other words...“anomalies,” where the accuracy of the theory comes into question thus prompting scientists to look for new ways at interpreting the data. But in evolutionary research, it’s not a new way of interpreting the data, once a theory has been falsified many times over with new discoveries, it’s finding ways to rescue the theory to keep it intact!

Another from the University of California, Berkeley exposes fraud that goes on in Paleoanthropology! He’s not a creationist nor an intelligent design proponent, but the things that go on in his field of work that consists of human evolution, have bothered him so much, he writes about it in current biology and it is jaw dropping…

“The unilineal depiction of human evolution popularized by the familiar iconography of an evolutionary ‘march to modern man’ has been proven wrong for more than 60 years. However, the cartoon continues to provide a popular straw man for scientists, writers and editors alike.”

“The authors take an unusual approach to constructing, in 3-D digital space, what they think the dental arcade of the new fossil maxilla should have looked like. They accomplish this feat by filling the fossil’s empty and broken tooth sockets with digital models of modern human teeth. Why modern human teeth were better suited than available contemporary fossil teeth is left unexplained.”  

“Paleoanthropology’s ecosystem of publishing, access, fundraising, career advancement, media promotion and celebrity seems squarely aligned against the field’s ability to self regulate, a condition exacerbated by the limited fossil resources available.”

“There is ample and obvious motivation for authors to generate ‘new’ species names in this environment. Readers should, therefore, beware of attendant species diversity claims. Illegitimate names have become part and parcel of the symbiosis itself. Furthermore, ‘chronospecies’ are merely artificial segments of evolving species lineages, rather than truly separate species.”

Such assertions of biological species diversity via taxonomic hyperbole are questionable representations of the real paleobiology of our ancestors and their few close, now extinct biological relatives. Despite the branch waving, our family tree still resembles a saguaro cactus more than a creosote bush.”

This is something one doesn’t read every day in published science articles! Tim White gives the public an honest view of what been going on in the work of trying to create a story about human evolution from fossils. He accuses his colleagues of being greedy, not caring for the research itself, but are in it for just to self-promotion, to make as much money as they can! White is also frustrated that his field of work cannot self-regulate which in turn would reduce the problems that exist.

Trusting proclamations about human evolution is getting harder even for some evolutionists themselves!

Evolutionary Assumption: Mutation Clock

How do evolutionists date important events? They use what is known as the “Mutation Clock” in humans. A recent study conducted for three years has shown that this clock is half off by their own assumptions!

The study was published in science magazine

“Now it seems that the molecular clock ticks more slowly than anyone had thought, and many dates may need to be adjusted. Over the past 3 years, researchers have used new methods to sequence whole human genomes, allowing them to measure directly, for the first time, the average rate at which new mutations arise in a newborn baby. Most of these studies conclude that the mutation rate in humans today is roughly half the rate that has been used in many evolutionary studies since 2000.

“Together, these papers make a convincing case that the human sequence mutation rate is substantially less than the one previously used,” says Harvard University population geneticist David Reich, co-author of one recent study. “As a result, genetic estimates of dates for ancient events are going to be older than previously reported.”

This could throw off many events because “timing” is so important in the evolutionary story. Now paleoanthropologist Chris Stringer is calling these events, “very murky” while John Hawks sounded the alarm, “We can’t figure out how things happened if we don’t know when they happened.” 

Other problems include:

1) The first appearance of a fossil may not represent the first appearance of the species!

2)  “there are no fossils of our closest living relatives: chimps and gorillas”

3) Genes may have diverge long before species do.

4) Mutation rates can differ between apes due to other factors, like years between generations.

While evolutionists admit that mutations are a key component for explaining human evolution for better or worse “because most new mutations are deleterious.”  The only thing empirical in the study is mutations rates of humans in a certain part of the world, and fossil bones with no dates on them.

In desperation they cling to mutations as sources of novelty that can transform one species into the next with amazing specialized complexity when they know full well that most of them are not beneficial and admitting that 36 mutations per generation is deadly, while  ignoring the millions of neutral or nearly neutral mutations that cause code decay over time which doesn’t help evolution’s story.  A good study on this is, Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome by John Sanford which is a great read! He explains genetic entropy which is an observational fact, very well!

With most mutations non-beneficial and with 36 deadly mutations per generation, the human race could not have survived tens of thousands of years at that rate of change! Here is an analogy, if you type mistakes (typos) in a research paper for example, over the course of time especially a long period of time, that information begins to break down and becomes unreadable and useless!

Humans haven’t been around tens of thousands of years!  That’s why civilization, agriculture and the technology appeared so abruptly, just like history shows, less than 10,000 years ago which confirms creationism!

Evolutionary Anthropology Literature

When it comes to evolutionary anthropology nothing ever stands the test of time, one discovery after another ends up with conclusions that you were taught wrong in school, and revisions are required but these revisions are not necessarily revealing the light of understanding on the subject, rather it invokes more confusion within the evolutionary story.

Lee Berger  continues to create a sensational story about the Australopithecus sediba fossils. Does it really reveal evolution? Soft tissue was discovered from these fossils, which was a first and certainly not the last. They date the soft tissues a whopping two million years old!

It doesn’t stop there, hair was removed, as well as proteins and DNA being a possibly of being preserved, calling into question about our species. Even though past hype about how close we are to understanding human evolution had been falsified, this discovery keeps with up religiously with tradition of claiming we are on the verge of discovering exactly how the ancients evolved.

It gets better, in Israel a fossil known as, “Man The Fat Hunter” was published. The story tells us about overweight humans have starved to death when fat elephants became instinct.  How did does one come up with such a conclusion about the unobserved past? It’s elementary my dear Watson!  “We employ a bio-energetic model to present a hypothesis that the disappearance of the elephants…”  –PLoS 

There still remains a deep mystery that alludes evolutionary scientists which is a mechanism for the term “emergence.” Also there seems to be confusion about the evolutionary timeline, a new paper in Nature says 43,000 years for  modern humans but evolutionary dating for modern humans is 60,000 in South Africa according to Paul Mellars in the same paper.

What does that mean? Well Watson, let me put it this way. Ancient humans in Africa (Homo erectus) who were able to hunt elephants, cook, and make tools with the possibility of being able to sail were unable for some strange reason to find Europe for 17,000 years. Wait a minute! Sue O’Conner told us that humans sailed to Australia 50,000 years ago!

Also Avi Gopher told us slimmer ancients (humans) were cognitively-capable ancestors and were already in the Levant 400,000 years ago while telling us something factual about Neanderthals inter-breeding with modern humans.  Hollywood couldn’t have come up with this kind of story!  Such confusion! More includes fishing 35,000 years before agriculture. Isn’t planting food easier than trying to catch a fish?

When you take away the conclusions of evolutionary literature, it all makes sense, humans have always been what they are which includes variants and they haven’t been around that long.

Two million years is an illogical assumption that things like soft tissue should remain intact for that length of time. It also makes stories more sensational than Hollywood could ever make but it useless to what really happened in the past. The best eyewitness account comes from the Bible where it makes sense!

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.

Paleoanthropologist Frustrated Over Assumptions

In a field dedicated to the advancement of the evolutionary story, it has come up road block after road block. Considered a science in crisis! When they come up with a solution, it just creates more problems to solve and eventually gets overturned with direct evidence  which is an indication, the framework namely, evolution is faulty.

Paleoanthropologist Barnard Woods wrote an interesting, honest and frank reality of his work as well as others in his commentary in PNAS. His comments revolve around this premise; “The origin of our own genus remains frustratingly unclear.” In a previous paper, Wood points out there is confusion in his field about being certain which is which, “it’s not so easy to determine whether relatively new fossil finds are early members of the human evolutionary family or prehistoric apes.”

In physorg

“The anthropologists question the claims that several prominent fossil discoveries made in the last decade are our human ancestors.  Instead, the authors offer a more nuanced explanation of the fossils’ place in the Tree of Life.  They conclude that instead of being our ancestors the fossils more likely belong to extinct distant cousins.”  Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison chided fellow paleoanthropologists for their jumping to conclusions: “to simply assume that anything found in that time range has to be a human ancestor is na ve.”

This reminds one of the hype with this assumption in a headline, “Prehuman Lucy on a Walking Path” to humanity.”  Barnard Woods is right in this regard, jumping to conclusions is not good but he also stated in 2006 when a research team claimed to have discovered bones in Ethiopia from three hominid species lined up in a vertical row, showing a clear progression toward humans “When you find 30 new hominid fossils, you are allowed a certain amount of conjecture.”

Now back to Woods recent comments…

“Although many of my colleagues are agreed regarding the “what” with respect to Homo, there is no consensus as to the “how” and “when” questions.  Until relatively recently, most  paleoanthropologists (including the writer) assumed Africa was the answer to the “where” question, but in a little more than a decade discoveries at two sites beyond Africa, one at Dmanisi in Georgia and the other at Liang Bua on the island of Flores, have called this assumption into question.”

“The results of recent excavations at Dmanisi reported in PNAS , which suggest that hominins visited that site on several occasions between ca. 1.85 and ca. 1.77 Ma, together with recent reassessments of the affinities of Homo habilis, are further reasons for questioning the assumption that Homo originated in Africa.”

Dmanisi specimens are hard to classify in the evolutionary framework, no doubt because you have things like Liang Bua specimens dubbed Homo floresiensis, that seem primitive but yet they overlap substantially with modern humans! The miniature humans remain very confusing to paleoanthropologists. Wood points out there is evidence that could support an opposite viewpoint too concerning our ancestors which to them migrated either out of Africa or into Africa. Not sure which, confused? They are!

It’s not surprising that Paleoanthropologists like Woods are frustrated with what’s going on over evolutionary assumptions. What progress have they done since Darwin’s time? It’s the wrong path, nothing more than a invented fictional story being passed along as factual! His field is full of rivalry, contradiction, deception, exaggeration and outright fraud and requires more faith than any known religion! Real science has some setbacks but does contain a progression in knowledge whether it be technology or medicine, yet it also is able to confirm the Bible!

How Falsifications Lead To Confirmations In Evolution

Homoplasy is fancy jargon for convergent evolution which is often times invoked as an explanation of organisms having supposedly and independently converge on the same complex solution from the same complex problem via evolution. It has been subject to debate for many years within evolution about whether or not it exhibits directionality or inevitability.

In science daily

“The authors provide many fascinating examples of homoplasy, including different species of salamanders that independently, through evolution, increased their body-length by increasing the lengths of individual vertebrae. By contrast, most species grow longer by adding vertebrae through evolution.”

In any case, it’s incredibly and enormously hard (and this is being generous) for a random process to produce specified things like eyes just one time let alone doing a number of times again which suggests that multiple independent cases would falsify evolution big time!  The authors mentioned in science daily using taxpayer funding decided that the damaging evidence was really a triumph for Darwinian evolution.

So what you have here, homoplasy being a fancy jargon term for convergent evolution which failed evolutionary predictions at first, but then it was later invoked into the framework to claim future and past  predictions. “See” some say, “evolution predicts it” in other words they are claiming evolution predicted it all along, they just were not aware of it at first. This is how a story which has been falsified by the evidence numerous times leads itself to confirmations in science.

When mistakes happen in evolution, often times the theories are not abandoned by the falsifications. Fossils are a prime example of this and seem to always make huge headlines. Back in 2004,   reported in Science and Scientific American, was the latest claim of a human fossil from Africa considered to be the oldest ever found that was originally discovered in 2001.

The fossil consisted of a mere six fragments of teeth from Ethiopia, by the team of Haile-Selassie. Not all were convinced. David Begun says…

“It is tempting to see evidence of anagenesis (unilinear evolution) in the late Miocene hominin record in part because continuity is suggested by claims for some evidence of bipedalism in all known taxa.  The evidence from Orrorin is ambiguous … whereas that from Sahelanthropus is indirect, based only on the position of the foramen magnum.”

“The region is severely distorted in the only cranial specimen of Sahelanthropus, and even the describers recognize the uncertainty.  A. kadabba is interpreted as a biped on the basis of a single toe bone, a foot proximal phalanx, with a dorsally oriented proximal joint surface, as in more recent hominins.”

“However, the same joint configuration occurs in the definitely nonbipedal late Miocene hominid Sivapithecus, and the length and curvature of this bone closely resembles those of a chimpanzee or bonobo.  In addition, the specimen is 400,000 to 600,000 years younger than the rest of the A. kadabba sample, 800,000 years older than A. ramidus, and from a locality that is geographically much closer to Aramis than to Asa Koma.  It may or may not be from a biped, and if it is, which biped?

His paper contains more questions than answers, words like “far from established”, and “unclear.” Then he concludes…

“Why the different interpretations?  Evidence is scarce and fragmentary, and uncertainty predominates. Interpretations rely especially heavily on past experience to make sense of incomplete evidence.  Haile-Selassie and colleagues interpret diversity in fossil hominids in terms of variability and gradual evolutionary change in an evolving lineage.  Others see cladistic diversity as opposed to ancestor-descendant relations….

Ancestor-descendant relations must exist , but adaptive radiation and cladogenesis also must exist , or organic diversity would be the same today as it was at the beginning of biological evolution.  Rather than a single lineage, the late Miocene hominin fossil record may sample an adaptive radiation , from a source either in Eurasia or yet undiscovered in Africa, the first of several radiations during the course of human evolution….  Regardless, the level of uncertainty in the available direct evidence at this time renders irreconcilable differences of opinion inevitable.  The solution is in the mantra of all paleontologists: We need more fossils!

This is one of the most damaging and blunt honest assessments concerning the story of human evolution that you will ever read in a secular science journal. Once you get by all the jargon produced in the paper, all that have is debate, uncertainty, and lack of evidence. Noticed how David Begun believes that evidence for both descent and diversity must exist, “or organic diversity would be the same today as it was at the beginning of biological evolution.” He basically wants it both ways: evidence of diversity, but also evidence of descent, and yet he has neither!

So what ever happened to the fossil containing 6 fragments considered to be the oldest human ancestor? It appears it wasn’t so human after all, earlier this month, Bernard Wood and Terry Harrison rebuked fellow paleoanthropologists for their jumping to conclusions saying that, “to simply assume that anything found in that time range has to be a human ancestor is naïve.”

This should always be keep in mind on what evolutionists consider to be evidence especially when it comes to articles like “Prehuman Lucy on a Walking Path” to humanity, or “Lucy Was No Swinger, Walked Like Us, Fossil Suggests” in places like Live Science or National Geographic.  So what was considered to be the oldest human fossil that turned out to be something different, did it damage the story of evolution? Here is how this falsification was turned around into a confirmation by evolutionists…

Skepticism regarding these famous primate fossil finds seems to call into question the rigor of the scientific process within the field of paleoanthropology. Wood’s and Harrison’s paper certainly makes one wonder: Are these isolated incidents of misinterpretation followed by media hype, or does the problem pervade the whole branch of science?  Is the human evolutionary fossil record a crapshoot? “No,“ said Harrison.  There are reasons why this branch of science may seem messier than most, he said, but all things considered, it is doing extremely well.”

Evolutionists appear very adept at turning criticism into praise in order to rescue the ‘theory’ in which they believe is true and are getting paid good money for to research.  Whether this neat trick or rescue tactic justifies evolution as a scientific theory is a different question.  The question here is, does it really lead to a deeper understanding of evolution, or is it sophistry?