Unevidenced

The paper begins by arguing against Newtonian inductivism (pg. 84) and claims the proper approach is theory without "patient accumulation of facts", asserting the "cloven hoofprint of theory" is inevitable:

 

“Today, most philosophers and psychologists would brand the inductivist credo as naive and untenable on two counts: 
(1) We do not encounter facts as 'data' (literally 'given') discovered objectively. All observation is colored by theory and expectation. (See Vernon, 1966, on therelation between expectation and perception. For a radical view, read Feyerabend's (1970) claim that theories act as 'party lines' to force observation in preset channels, unrecognized by adherents who think they observe an objective truth. 
(2)Theory does not develop as a simple and logical extension of observation; it does not arise merely from the patient accumulation of facts. Rather, we observe in order to test hypotheses and examine their consequences. Thus, Hanson (1970, pp.20-23) writes: 'Much recent philosophy of science has been dedicated to disclosing that a 'given' or a 'pure' observation language is a myth-eaten fabric of philosophical fiction... In any observation statement the cloven hoofprint of theory can be readily detected.'" (pg. 85)[93]”

Gould and Eldredge admitted Darwinian gradualism has been incorrect, and that "an inadequate picture has been guiding our thoughts on speciation for 100 years... because paleontologists, in claiming that they see objectively, have not recognized its guiding sway". A particularly telling quote, revealing they just invented the theory to protect Darwinism rather than through factual examination, is "To extract ourselves from this dilemma, we must bring in a more adequate theory: it will not arise from facts collected in the old way":

“"The inductivist view forces us into a vicious circle. A theory often compels us to see the world in its light and support. Yet, we think we see objectively and therefore interpret each new datum as an independent confirmation of our theory. Although our theory may be wrong, we cannot confute it. To extract ourselves from this dilemma, we must bring in a more adequate theory: it will not arise from facts collected in the old way... 
This issue is central to the study of speciation in paleontology. We believe that an inadequate picture has been guiding our thoughts on speciation for 100 years. We hold that its influence has been all the more tenacious because paleontologists, in claiming that they see objectively, have not recognized its guiding sway. We contend that a notion developed elsewhere, the theory of allopatric speciation, supplies a more satisfactory picture for the ordering of paleontological data." (pg. 86)[93]”

 

Unfalsifiable

The Biotic Message: Evolution Versus Message Theory by Walter ReMine accuses Punctuated Equilibrium of being unfalsifiable, of simply creating an unsubstantiated hypothesis to explain away the growing body of evidence seen from the fossil record that evolution is not constant and gradual, and that transitional forms don't exist.

 

“So is punctuated equilibrium testable? Gould says that a series of fossils showing gradual development of an adaptation would refute punctuated equilibrium. ReMine points out the 'no lose' situation that Gould and company have created here: if the fossils show systematic gaps, then the punctuated equilibrium model of evolution is 'proven', but if the fossils show gradualism, then the standard neo-Darwinian model of evolution is proven. In other words, evolution itself is no longer falsifiable! Punctuated equilibrium and neoDarwinism are both now part of the evolutionists' grab-bag of conflicting theories as Gould and Eldredge now view punctuated equilibrium as an addition to evolutionary theory rather than an alternative."

-Don Batten, review of "The Biotic Message" in Creation[94]

 

Are There Transitions?

 

Aside from the isolated, oft-debatable example such as Archaeopteryx, the fossil record as a whole lacks the transitional forms necessary to prove a common ancestor. TalkOrigins likes to point to cases of speciation as evidence for the theory of Evolution, but the vast majority are simply evidence of Microevolution compatible with Young Earth Creationism and Genesis 1.[95] However, the definition of species is itself subjective and arbitrary, so Evolutionists can simply define species however they want to claim evidence of speciation. However, the species in question do not ever become entirely new forms of life, the kind of Macroevolution needed to evince a common ancestor.

 

“People like to point out natural selection and the resulting speciation as evidence of evolution, because there’s a mountain of data to support both of those as testable, observable science. But don’t forget: we define what a species is, and no amount of ash on trees has ever changed a moth, dark or light, into a bee or a bird. They also like to point at bacterial mutation as evidence of evolution, but I have an issue with that, too. We’ve been watching those little guys since the invention of the microscope over 300 years ago, and while they’ve changed genetically and adapted as bacteria, they’ve never evolved into a new, higher form of life. Think about this: if a bacterial generation is 20 minutes, and a human generation is 20 years, then they should be evolving 525,000 times faster than we are. And if it took 3.2 million years for Lucy, the alleged missing link to become modern man, we should expect to see similar evolutionary advancements in bacteria in a period of just six years. Wow. And I’m talking about real evolution. Not just slight alterations to DNA, or building up immunities to this or that, but transforming, actually evolving into something more complex – a brand new form of life. A higher form of life.

-The Brothers Winn[96]

 

'Transitions', Same Species Alive Today

 

Wikipedia provides a detailed list of transitional forms, the most detailed to be found online.[97] However, many of these so-called "transitions" in the fossil record are just the same types of life we see today. For example:

 

• There are ancient snails and nautiloids (e.g. Ammonoidea, Nautiloidea) which are similar to snails and nautiloids seen today.

• There are ancient octopi (e.g. Palaeoctopus, Proteroctopus, Vampyronassa) which are strikingly similar to octopi seen today.

• There are ancient cockroaches (Aphthoroblattina), butterflies (Archaeolepis), spiders (Attercopus, Eoplectreurys), bees (Melittosphex), ants (Sphecomyrma), and leaf insects (Eophyllium), similar to insects today.

• There are ancient eels (Pikaia, Conodont, Anguillavus) and bony fish (Coelacanth, Guiyu) such as those alive today, in fact the Coelacanth is still alive.

• There are ancient sharks (Cladoselache) and stingrays (Cyclobatis) which are apparent as similar to what we see today.

• There are ancient catfish (Corydoras Revelatus), seahorses (Hippocampus Sarmaticus, Hippocampus Slovenicus), flatfish (Amphistium, Eobothus), perch (Palaeoperca), sunfish (Eomola), boxfish (Eolactoria, Proaracana), and moonyfish (Psettopsis, Pasaichthys). All of them are visibly similar to fish we see today.

• There are ancient iguanas (Gangiguana), chameleons (Anqingosaurus), geckos (Cretaceogekko), lizards (Hylonomus, Paleothyris), and alligators (Ventastega, Tulerpeton), the latter which may include the famous Tiktaalik. Many could pass for species alive today.

• There are ancient frogs (Triadobatrachus, Prosalirus, Vieraella), salamanders (Eocaecilia, Gerobatrachus, Najash), turtles (e.g. Odontochelys, Proganochelys), snakes (Eupodophis), and amphibians (Tseajaia, Proterogyrinus, Westlothiana) similar to species we see today.

• There are ancient birds (Anchiornis, Archaeopteryx, Confuciusornis, Eoalulavis) including penguins (Waimanu), ducks/loons (Colymboides), parrots (Mopsitta), falcons (Masillaraptor), hummingbirds (Primapus), albatrosses (Ichthyornis), and flamingos (Elornis).

• There are ancient bats (Onychonycteris).

• There are ancient rabbits (Eurymylus).

• There are ancient pandas (Ailuropoda microta).

• There are ancient deer (Heteroprox), camels (Protylopus), and antelope (Eotragus).

• There are ancient squirrels (Purgatorius).

• There are ancient orangutans (Sivapithecus).

• There are ancient hippos (Kenyapotamus).

• There are ancient pangolins (Eomanis).

• There are ancient tapirs (Heptodon, Hyrachyus).

• There are ancient elephants (Eritherium).

• There are ancient swordfish (Eurhinodelphis).

• There are ancient otters (Puijila Darwini, Potamotherium).

 

It is a little-known reality that the same types of life we see today exist in the farthest reaches of the fossil record, and are being somewhat disingenuously claimed as evidence of transition from a common ancestor by Evolutionists. Life then was much the same as life now, the exact same types of life existed, which is exactly what a Creationist would expect to see in the fossil record if God created core categories of life at the dawn of time. Evolutionists simply INTERPRET the evidence to fit their belief in a common ancestor.

 

Early Bipedal Humans

 

If Young Earth Creationism is true then one would expect to see modern bipedal humans who walk upright, similar to modern man, at the very base of the human family tree, which is exactly what we find. Recent discoveries have shown that, contrary to prior claims, the earliest hominids walked upright and were similar to modern man, rather than apes. The four oldest hominids, Orrorin tugenensis, Sahelanthropus tchadensis, Ardipithecus ramidus, and Australopithecus africanus (a.k.a. 'Lucy') are all now acknowledged to be bipedal (upright-walking) with striking cases of complexity similar to modern man.

 

Bipedal humans moderately dissimilar to current human beings are predicted by Young Earth Creationism because the Bible says God changed human beings from a 900+ year lifespan to the current 120 year lifespan around the time of the Flood. Given the Bible's Genesis 6:3 and chapter 5 genealogies, God transitioned mankind from a 900 year lifespan to a 120 year lifespan. Thus the Young Earth Creationist expects to see human transitional forms in the fossil record, but transitional forms that are similar to modern man, and transitioning by age, rather than from a common ancestor.

 

“Genesis 6:3 : "And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also is flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years."

Genesis  : "And Methuselah lived an hundred eighty and seven years, and begat Lamech: And Methuselah lived after he begat Lamech seven hundred eighty and two years, and begat sons and daughters: And all the days of Methuselah were nine hundred sixty and nine years: and he died."25-275:

 

The following are some noteworthy cases of early hominids similar to modern man:

 

2000: Orrorin Tugenensis

 

The discovery of O. tugenensis proved problematic for evolutionary theory because, despite being much older than "Lucy," it walked upright and was "in a more advanced stage of evolution". It also called into question the Savannah Hypothesis and conventional evolutionary theory.

 

“French and Kenyan scientists have unearthed what they believe to be the oldest remains of a hominid, or ape-man, ever found. Although the fossils themselves have not been dated, the rock in which they were discovered is known to be six million years old... 'Not only is this find older than any other previously known, it is also in a more advanced stage of evolution,' KPE palaeontologist Dr Martin Pickford told a news conference in Nairobi."

-BBC News, "'Oldest' Ape Man Fossils Unearthed," 2000.[98]

 

This indicates a divergence between Hominidae and Gorillidae that dates back to a substantial period prior to 6 Ma, and we estimate about 8-7 Ma for this event. If so, then the discovery of Orrorin refutes all hypotheses in which humans diverged from apes later than 7 Ma, including most of the recent estimates by molecular biologists who tend to think of the divergence as having taken place later than 5 Ma, and even as recently as 2.5 Ma. In other words, the much vaunted 'molecular clock' seems to be telling us the wrong time. The fact that Orrorin is found with other fauna that indicates a wooded to forested environment, tends to refute the 'savannah' hypothesis of human origins. It seems more likely now that bipedalism originated from an arboreal ancestor, rather than via a knuckle-walking ground dweller similar to chimpanzees. Thus, previous palaeoecological and palaeoenvironmental scenarios of human origins will need to be reconsidered in light of the new data."

-Martin Pickford, GeoSciences, "Fast Breaking Comments," 2001.[99]

 

2002: Sahelanthropus Tchadensis

 

Once again, the term "bush" is used to describe the implications of an early ancestor. With Orrorin tugenesis, S. tchadensis remains by far our oldest discovered fossils, and like O. tugenesis, it shows evidence of early bipedality, rather than similarity to apes.

 

“When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder," he [anthropologist Bernard Wood] says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids - the group containing everything thought more closely related to humans than chimps. How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated... Based on this, we might have to question some species' place in the hominid club. If Australopithecus looks more ape-like than a much older fossil, how can it belong to the human family? 'Anything with a more primitive face has to have its membership reviewed,' says Wood. No groups will be expelled on the evidence so far. The real lesson, says Wood, is that appearances are a bad guide to evolutionary relations. Hominid and ape species probably mixed and matched from a set of features, he says, with the same traits evolving independently on multiple lineages."

-John Whitfield, Nature, "Oldest Member of Human Family Found," 2002.[100]

 

"The reconstruction shows that the opening in the base of the skull through which the spinal cord passes, called the foramen magnum, is oriented so that the neck points downwards. But in apes, such as gorillas, the neck point backwards, explains Dan Lieberman, a palaeoanthropologist at Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts and a member of Brunet's team. The virtual reconstruction shows that Toumaï probably walked upright with head held aloft. This means that Toumaï's head balanced on top of its spine, suggesting an upright walking stance. 'The evidence certainly suggests that Toumaï was a biped,' says Lieberman... Lieberman, on the other hand, points out that all of the earliest known bipeds, such as the hominid Australopithecus afarensis, which is about half as old as Toumaï, had large neck muscles. 'This work confirms that Toumaï is the earliest and most complete hominid, and suggests that the earliest hominids were bipedal,' claims Lieberman. 'And that's big news.'"

-Jessica Ebert, Nature, "Facelift Seals Standing of Oldest Hominid," 2005.[101]

 

"What is remarkable about the chimp-sized cranium TM 266-01-060-1 discovered by Brunet et al. is its mosaic nature. Put simply, from the back it looks like a chimpanzee, whereas from the front it could pass for a 1.75-million-year-old advanced australopith. The hominid features involve the structure of the face, and the small, apically worn, canine crowns. Other hominid features are found in the base of the cranium and in the separate jaw fragment. If we accept these as sufficient evidence to classify S. tchadensis as a hominid at the base, or stem, of the modern human clade, then it plays havoc with the tidy model of human origins. Quite simply, a hominid of this age should only just be beginning to show signs of being a hominid. It certainly should not have the face of a hominid less than one-third of its geological age. Also, if it is accepted as a stem hominid, under the tidy model the principle of parsimony dictates that all creatures with more primitive faces (and that is a very long list) would, perforce, have to be excluded from the ancestry of modern humans."

-Bernard Wood, Nature, "Paleoanthropology: Revelations from Chad," 2002.[102]

 

2009: Ardipithecus Ramidus

 

The new discovery of Ardipithecus Ramidus, nicknamed "Ardi", dispelled the popular notion that humans once looked like modern chimps, and indeed that we were anything like them.[103] Also, Ardi proves to have very strong evidence of being a biped; an upright walker. One paleontologist, Alan Walker, remarks that "This find is far more important than Lucy", given that it was older than Afarensis, the famous "Lucy". National Geographic's Jamie Shreeve in October 2009 announced that, "If White and his team are right that Ardi walked upright as well as climbed trees, the environmental evidence would seem to strike the death knell for the 'savanna hypothesis'—a long-standing notion that our ancestors first stood up in response to their move onto an open grassland environment."[104] Shortly after this was publicized again in March 2010 by Smithsonian Magazine[105], the claim that Ardi lived in the woodlands was attacked by Evolutionists because of its threat to the Savannah Hypothesis.[106]

 

“Move over Lucy. And kiss the missing link goodbye... The fossil puts to rest the notion, popular since Darwin's time, that a chimpanzee-like missing link—resembling something between humans and today's apes—would eventually be found at the root of the human family tree. Indeed, the new evidence suggests that the study of chimpanzee anatomy and behavior—long used to infer the nature of the earliest human ancestors—is largely irrelevant to understanding our beginnings... 'This find is far more important than Lucy,' said Alan Walker, a paleontologist from Pennsylvania State University who was not part of the research. 'It shows that the last common ancestor with chimps didn't look like a chimp, or a human, or some funny thing in between... 'All of a sudden you've got fingers and toes and arms and legs and heads and teeth,' said Tim White of the University of California, Berkeley, who co-directed the work with Berhane Asfaw, a paleoanthropologist and former director of the National Museum of Ethiopia, and Giday WoldeGabriel, a geologist at Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico. 'That allows you to do something you can't do with isolated specimens,' White said. 'It allows you to do biology.'"

-Jamie Shreeve, National Geographic, "Oldest Skeleton of Human Ancestor Found," 2009.[104]

 

"The discovery of Ar. ramidus also requires rejection of theories that presume a chimpanzee- or gorilla-like ancestor to explain habitual upright walking. Ar. ramidus was fully capable of bipedality and had evolved a substantially modified pelvis and foot with which to walk upright. At the same time, it preserved the ability to maneuver in trees, because it maintained a grasping big toe and a powerful hip and thigh musculature."

-C.O. Lovejoy, Science, "Reexamining Human Origins in Light of Ardipithecus ramidus," 2009.[107]

 

"Detailed descriptions of the skeleton, of a fairly complete 4.4-million-year-old female, show that humans did not evolve from ancient knuckle-walking chimpanzees, as has long been believed. The new fossils of Ardipithecus ramidus — known as 'Ardi' — offer the first substantial view of the biology of a species close to the time of the last common ancestor shared by humans and apes. Like modern humans, Ardi could walk upright and didn't use her arms for walking, as chimps do. Still, she retains a primitive big toe that could grasp a tree like an ape... Ardi's hands and wrists don't show several distinctive chimp characteristics, such as some larger bones and a tendon 'shock absorber' system to withstand bodyweight, says team member Owen Lovejoy of Kent State University in Ohio. The foot, with its big toe sticking out sideways, would have allowed Ardi to clamber in trees, walking along branches on her palms. And her teeth show no tusk-like upper canines, which most apes have for weapons or display during conflict. 'This is a major feature showing that Ardi is not in the lineage of modern chimps,' Suwa says."

-Rex Dalton, Nature, "Fossil Rewrites Early Human Evolution," 2009.[108]

 

2009: Erectus Walked Upright

 

Newly discovered footprints cast even further doubt on the belief we once looked like apes, and more evidence for bipedalism in ancient humans.

 

“Footprints uncovered in Kenya show that as early as 1.5 million years ago an ancestral species, almost certainly Homo erectus, had already evolved the feet and walking gait of modern humans... Studying the more than a dozen prints, scientists determined that the individuals had heels, insteps and toes almost identical to those in humans, and that they walked with a long stride similar to human locomotion."

-John Noble Wilford, New York Times, "Prints Show a Modern Foot in Prehumans," 2009.[109]

 

2011: 'Lucy' Walked Upright

 

It was officially announced Lucy, the most famously heralded missing link, was a biped and walked upright, rather than being a tree-climber as previously believed. The discovery probably is influenced by the find of Ardi over a year earlier. Conveniently after the discovery of Ardi, the scientific community realized they had been mistaken, and Lucy like Erectus walked upright after all, instead of being a knuckle-walking ape-like transition as they had claimed.

 

“An unprecedented fossil foot bone appears to confirm that Australopithecus afarensis—the early human ancestors made famous by the "Lucy" skeleton—walked like modern humans, a new study says... Revealed in 2009, Ardi helped dispel the notion that a chimplike missing link occupied the base of the human family tree. Ardi's 'foot was already a pretty good bipedal foot, although that species retained an opposable great toe.' A. afarensis's foot now appears far more advanced than previously thought, Lovejoy said."

-Brian Handwerk, National Geographic, 'Lucy' Was No Swinger, Walked Like Us, Fossil Suggests, 2011.[110]

 

"Turns out, Lucy wasn’t in the sky at all; she was grounded just like us. The 3.2 million-year-old skeleton considered a predecessor to modern man had arches in her feet, meaning she didn’t climb trees as previously thought, researchers have found... 'We had this idea that Australopithecus afarensis was part ape and part human and partly still tree-climbing,' said Carol Ward, an MU researcher in the Department of Pathology and Anatomical Sciences at MU’s School of Medicine. Instead, they 'were walking just like we do.'"

-Janese Silvey, Columbia Daily Tribune, "Fossil Marks Big Step in Evolution Science," 2011.[111]

 

Coexistence Disproves 'Missing Links'

 

Evolution has been falsely claiming missing links that are now known to have coexisted, making it very unlikely they could have evolved from one another.

 

“The new fossil evidence reveals an overlap of about 500,000 years during which Homo habilis and Homo erectus must have co-existed in the Turkana basin area, the region of East Africa where the fossils were unearthed. 'Their co-existence makes it unlikely that Homo erectus evolved from Homo habilis,' said co-author Professor Meave Leakey, palaeontologist and co-director of the Koobi Fora Research Project."

-James Urquhart, BBC News[112]

 

"Two fossils unearthed in Kenya have added a new dimension to our view of life at the birth of our Homo genus. They show that two ancestral human species seem to have lived cheek-by-jowl in the same area, much as gorillas and chimpanzees do today... Spoor and his colleagues argue that this makes it less likely that H. erectus was a direct descendant of H. habilis, instead suggesting that there is a common ancestor yet to find."

-Michael Hopkin, Nature[113]

 

 

According to Encyclopaedia Britannica's current dating of Australopiths, the following hominids all coexisted, which it dates as follows (dates YECs disagree with - mya standing for million years ago)[114]:

 

• Ar. kaddaba (5.8-4.4 mya) and Ar. ramidus (5.8-4.4 mya) coexisted 5.8-4.4 mya.

• A. afarensis (3.8-2.9 mya), K. platyops (3.5-3.2 mya), and A. bahrelgazali (3.5-3.0 mya) all coexisted 3.5-3.2 mya. A. africanus (3.0-2.5 mya) coexisted with all but K. platyops at 3.0 mya.

• P. aethiopicus (2.7-2.3 mya), A. africanus (3.0-2.5 mya), A. garhi (2.5 mya), H. habilis (2.5-1.5 mya), and H. rudolfensis (2.5-1.5 mya) all coexisted at 2.5 mya.

• A. sediba (2.0 mya), P. boisei (2.2-1.3 mya), H. rudolfensis (2.5-1.5 mya), and H. habilis (2.5-1.5 mya) all coexisted at 2.0 mya.

• H. habilis (2.5-1.5 mya), H. rudolfensis (2.5-1.5 mya), P. boisei (2.2-1.3 mya), H. erectus (1.8), and P. robustus (1.8-1.5 mya) all coexisted 1.8 mya.

 

A large number of hominids therefore coexisted at five different time periods as seen from the fossil record, and should not have evolved into one another. Despite this, evolutionists continue claiming hominids which lived at the same time as one another evolved into one another, disregarding the evidence they don't like. The following discoveries of hominid coexistence figured prominently in the media:

 

2001: Afarensis and Ramidus coexisted

 

It turns out Lucy (A. afarensis) wasn't alone, but lived at the same time as another australopithecine. The discovery that two hominins that were supposed to be descended from one another, one of them the famous "Lucy", lived at the same time, led for the first time to the phrase "bush" being used instead of tree.

 

“Now it seems that the fossil species Australopithecus afarensis, which lived from about four million to three million years ago and is best known from the celebrated Lucy skeleton, was not alone on the African plain. Lucy may not even be a direct human ancestor after all. Indeed, the family tree, once drawn with a trunk straight and true, is beginning to look more like a bush, with a tangle of branches of uncertain relationship leading in many directions."

-John Noble Wilford, New York Times, "Skull May Alter Expert's View Of Human Descent's Branches," 2001.[115]

 

2003: Neanderthal and Humans Coexisted

 

The finding of three skulls revealed humans and Neanderthals lived side by side, and thus could not be evolved from each other.

 

“Prior to the discovery of these fossils, evidence for the out-of-Africa theory of evolution for modern humans was largely based on the analysis of genetic variation in people alive today. Archaeological evidence from 100,000 to 300,000 years ago was scarce. As a result, another theory that modern humans evolved simultaneously in various parts of the world at roughly the same time from ancient local populations, such as the Neanderthals in Europe, maintained plausible traction. Timothy White, a paleoanthropologist at the University of California at Berkeley, said that the fossils he and his colleagues found in Ethiopia fill this gap in the archaeological record and support the argument that Neandertal was an evolutionary side branch unrelated to modern humans... 'This would signal the importance of culture in these ancient hominids, which should not come as a surprise to us," she said. 'I expect they were much more like us than we have given them credit for being.'"

-John Roach, National Geographic, "Oldest Homo Sapiens Fossils Found, Experts Say," 2003.[116]

 

2004: Homo Floresiensis Lived Recently

 

The discovery of a diminutive species living on the island of Flores until the past 18,000 years proved difficult for evolutionary theory, because there's no explainable lineage for the new species. As a result, attempts were made to explain the fossil as a modern human suffering from microcephaly, a degenerative disease.[117]

 

“When the remains of a tiny species of human were discovered on the remote Indonesian island of Flores (as reported in Nature last month1,2), it was clear that the story was going to have far-reaching implications. The one-metre-tall hominids jolted palaeoanthropologists' notions of what it means to be human, and challenged the idea that Homo sapiens has long been the only human species on this planet."

-Henry Gee, Nature, "Kicking the Hobbit Habit," 2004.[118]

 

"Homo floresiensis, dubbed the 'hobbit' of Indonesia, is once again igniting debate. A skull-scanning study supports the idea that the diminutive individual was not a separate species, but simply a stunted human... The 18,000-year-old fossil stunned the anthropology community when it was discovered in a limestone cave on the Indonesian island of Flores in 2003. The young adult female lived relatively recently, yet was unlike any other hominid species known — she was only a metre tall, with long limbs relative to her torso and a tiny cranium compared with the modern humans living elsewhere on the planet at the time. She was reported in Nature as a new and completely unexpected species of human: H. floresiensis. Researchers have since clashed over whether the skull really does represent a different species or merely a deformed Homo sapiens — perhaps the result of dwarfism or microcephaly, a developmental disorder that results in a very small skull and brain... But palaeoanthropologist William Jungers of Stony Brook University in New York isn't convinced by Holloway's conclusions either. 'They note a fascinating similarity in the cranial measurements found in Homo floresiensis and Australopithecus but ignored it in favour of making the microcephaly argument,' he says. 'A weird decision, but hobbit politics as usual.'"

-Matt Kaplan, Nature, "'Hobbit' Just a Deformed Human?," 2011.[119]

 

2007: Habilis and Erectus Coexisted

 

Meave Leakey, part of the famous Leakey family, in 2007 made the startling discovery that two of the most major evidences for the human evolutionary tree lived side by side, making it unlikely one descended from the other as commonly believed. This discovery led to multiple major news publications acknowledging the human evolutionary tree now looks like a messy bush.

 

“A new discovery suggests that Homo erectus may not have evolved from Homo habilis—and that the two may have been contemporaries. The phrase 'family bush' doesn't trip off the tongue the way 'family tree' does, but anyone talking about human evolution had better get used to it. For years, scientists who study human origins have known that the simple model in which one human ancestor evolved into another in a nice, linear fashion is a myth. Instead, starting 4 million years ago, half a dozen species in the genus Australopithecus lived in Africa at the same time. Only one is our direct ancestor; the others were evolutionary dead ends, failed experiments. But experts thought that once the Homo lineage debuted about 2.5 million years ago in East Africa with Homo habilis, things settled down, with habilis evolving into Homo erectus who evolved into Homo sapiens—us—like biblical begats. Two fossils discovered in Kenya suggest that evolution was a lot messier than that."

-Sharon L. Begley, Newsweek, "The Human Family Shrub?," 2007.[120]

 

"The new research by famed paleontologist Meave Leakey in Kenya shows our family tree is more like a wayward bush with stubby branches, calling into question the evolution of our ancestors. The old theory was that the first and oldest species in our family tree, Homo habilis, evolved into Homo erectus, which then became us, Homo sapiens. But those two earlier species lived side-by-side about 1.5 million years ago in parts of Kenya for at least half a million years, Leakey and colleagues report in a paper published in Thursday’s issue of the journal Nature... Overall what it paints for human evolution is a 'chaotic kind of looking evolutionary tree rather than this heroic march that you see with the cartoons of an early ancestor evolving into some intermediate and eventually unto us,' Spoor said in a phone interview from a field office of the Koobi Fora Research Project in northern Kenya."

-Seth Borenstein, Associated Press, "Fossils Paint Messy Picture of Human Origins," 2007.[121]

 

Where Were the Ape Fossils? Offshoots

 

Evolutionists were trying to lump all the fossils into the human family tree, which resulted in a severe dearth until now of possible ape fossils. As more evidence of ancient bipedal humans has emerged however, not to mention hominids that coexisted and thus did not evolve into one another as had been claimed, it has had the effect of forcing the scientific community to recognize hominids they once labeled part of the human family tree are really "offshoots" not part of the human lineage.

 

2005: First Chimp Fossil Found, In Wrong Place

 

For the first time, a chimp fossil was found - which only serves to highlight how frustrating it's been for paleontologists until now that they couldn't find any. After all, it's kind of hard to say we evolved from chimps if chimps don't appear to have existed long ago. It also weakened the Savannah Hypothesis (theory for human bipedality) trying to explain that humans and chimps separated in evolution because chimps stayed in the jungles of western and central Africa, since the new fossils were found east of the Rift Valley.

 

“Palaeontologists digging in the dusty wastelands of East Africa have discovered the first known chimpanzee fossil. The modest haul of just three teeth is the first hard evidence of the evolutionary path that led to today's chimpanzees. As well as shedding light on chimps, the find throws up new questions about human evolution; it seems that chimpanzees may not have been physically separated from humans as was once thought. That no one had previously found a chimpanzee fossil had long been a frustrating puzzle, comments Sally McBrearty, an anthropologist at the University of Connecticut, who made the find near Lake Baringo, Kenya, with her colleague Nina Jablonski. Set against the many human fossils found in East Africa, the lack of specimens documenting the chimp's evolutionary story was exasperating... Previous theories suggested that chimps never crossed east of the Rift Valley, but instead stayed in the jungles of western and central Africa. Some even suspected that this physical separation was what set the earliest chimp and human ancestors on contrasting evolutionary voyages. But now McBrearty has stumbled on chimp remains east of this divide. This means we need a better explanation of why and how chimps and humans went their separate evolutionary ways, McBrearty says. The discovery that chimps were living in semi-arid conditions as well as in the jungle seems to blow apart the simplistic idea that it was the shift to savannah that led to humans walking upright."

-Hopkin, Michael, Nature, "First Chimp Fossil Unearthed," 2005.[122]

 

2009: Longuppo An Ape

 

In an unusual recantation, Russell L. Ciochan, who discovered the Longuppo fossil, admitted he now believes he and other paleontologists were wrong in calling the fossil of the human lineage, and that he now believes, given the discovery of Homo floresiensis, that his fossil is of an extinct ape.[123] He does so to try and explain where the mysterious "Hobbit Man" could have come from, since there otherwise remains no explanation for its unusual appearance in the fossil record.

 

“For many years, I used Longgupo to promote this pre-erectus origin for H. erectus finds in Asia. But now, in light of new evidence from across southeast Asia and after a decade of my own field research in Java, I have changed my mind. Not everyone may agree; such classifications are always open to interpretation. But I am now convinced that the Longgupo fossil and others like it do not represent a pre-erectus human, but rather one or more mystery apes indigenous to southeast Asia's Pleistocene primal forest... The problem is that no comparable wrist or foot bones are known for H. erectus, making it impossible at this time to exclude a local variant of H. erectus as the ancestor of the Liang Bua 'hobbit'. So our claim of a pre-erectus African hominin living in east Asia fell into a long line of such arguments... But more than a decade after the discovery, with some distance from the subject, the teeth in Wang's lab looked distinctly more ape-like than hominin."

-Russell L. Ciochan, Nature, "The Mystery Ape of Pleistocene Asia," 2009.[124]

 

2011: A. Sediba An Offshoot

 

Five papers published in the journal Science revealed how unclear it is to researchers how the fossil can relate to other relatives, given its extreme uniqueness.

 

“But Wood says the species' unique mix of primitive and modern anatomy, particularly its foot, underscores the difficulty in determining whether any fossil represents a direct human ancestor or an evolutionary dead-end with some human traits. 'I think we had this crazy notion that our morphology and our behaviour were so special that they couldn't have conceivably evolved more than once,' he says, adding that the papers 'will make identifying human ancestors a hell of a lot more difficult today than it was yesterday.'"

-Ewen Callaway, Nature, "Fossils Raise Questions About Human Ancestry," 2011.[125]

 

Earlier in 2010, researchers tried to label it as a member of the human lineage, only to be accused of bias by their fellow researchers. Most controversially, the Director of the Institute for Human Evolution at the University of Witwatersrand, Francis Thackeray, concluded at the end of the paper that "The new fossil has a suite of characters which confirm that there is no clear boundary between Australopithecus africanus and Homo", which if true, means Africanus might as well just be called a modern human rather than a primitive ancestor.[126] These discoveries have led to the acknowledgement by Leslie C. Aiello, President of the Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research, that a number of prior hypotheses must be rejected on the basis of such new discoveries.

 

“Most of the recent effort in hominin palaeontology has been focused on Africa and Europe. But the announcement in 2004 of the small hominin Homo floresiensis in Indonesia was a warning that we are naive to assume we know more than the basic outline of human evolutionary history. If H. floresiensis is indeed a surviving remnant of early Homo that left Africa around 2 million years ago, we have to reject the long-standing idea that Homo erectus was the first African emigrant. We also must reject many hypotheses concerning the prerequisites for this emigration, such as a relatively large brain size, large body size and human-like limb proportions. Importantly, we must confront our relative ignorance about human evolution outside Europe and Africa."

-Leslie Aiello, Nature, "2020 Visions," 2010.[127]

 

2011: New Discovery

A new fossil find from Ethiopia is just the latest in a series of finds that early humans did not evolve linearly from apes. The latest twist shows there were tree-dwelling apes a million years longer than there were supposed to be. This despite the fact that Ardi showed humans were walking upright at the time.

 

“A fossil discovered in Ethiopia suggests that humans' prehistoric relatives may have lived in the trees for a million years longer than was previously thought... The finding will force a rethink regarding the course of early hominin evolution, Harcourt-Smith adds. The addition of a mystery hominin species at this crucial time period suggests that the new species' lineage split from that leading to Lucy earlier in hominin history, and provides further evidence against the idea that modern humans evolved via a linear progression of species from apes."

-Brian Switek, Nature, "Ancient Human Ancestor Had Feet Like An Ape," 2012.[128]

 

The fossil also reveals that yet another species lived contemporarily side by side with Afarensis, aka Lucy, and that the grasping big toe of the earlier Ardi, a key feature of bipedalism, continued to still exist at the time:

 

“A newly discovered partial hominin foot skeleton from eastern Africa indicates the presence of more than one hominin locomotor adaptation at the beginning of the Late Pliocene epoch. Here we show that new pedal elements, dated to about 3.4 million years ago, belong to a species that does not match the contemporaneous Australopithecus afarensis in its morphology and inferred locomotor adaptations, but instead are more similar to the earlier Ardipithecus ramidus in possessing an opposable great toe. This not only indicates the presence of more than one hominin species at the beginning of the Late Pliocene of eastern Africa, but also indicates the persistence of a species with Ar. ramidus-like locomotor adaptation into the Late Pliocene."

-Yohannes Haile-Selassie et. al., Nature, "A New Hominin Foot From Ethiopia Shows Multiple Pliocene Bipedal Adaptations," 2011.[129]

 

Rates of Microevolution

If the world is as old as is commonly claimed, we should see animals today evolving at a rate consistent with this, over thousands and millions of years. That is why it is shocking for the scientific community that the accumulating evidence shows instead that Microevolution occurs over decades, rather than thousands and millions of years. David Skelly of Yale University has observed that the evolutionary rates are far faster than those presumed by evolutionary theory:

 

“Ecology is being transformed by the recognition that ecological and evolutionary timescales are not easily differentiated. A 1999 review of evolutionary rates by Andrew Hendry and Mike Kinnison (The pace of modern life: measuring rates of contemporary microevolution. Evolution 53:1637-1653) provided the striking conclusion that rates of contemporary evolution are much faster than generally appreciated... Our work reveals that a number of traits including critical thermal maximum, embryonic development rate, and thermal preference behavior all show variation consistent with local adaptation that occurs on the scale of decades and tens of meters. These findings offer a startlingly different picture of interactions between organisms and their environment prompting us to rethink, in larger sense, how we should conceive of ecological assemblages.[130]”

 

It also raises the question why, since species can adapt so quickly to their environments, do we only ever see the microevolution compatible with the Bible occurring, and not the macroevolution needed to prove a common ancestor?"

 

Australia's 'Toxic Toad'

 

In one of the most widely publicized cases of unexpected rapid Microevolution, Australian Cane Toads defied predictions based on evolutionary theory by experts about how they would react after being introduced to Australia. Within decades they evolved longer legs and heat tolerance, running amok and causing havoc for the wildlife; and instituting a national catastrophe for the continent.

 

“The evolutionary processes spawned by the cane toad invasion have occurred in a span of just 70 years. This adds to evidence from the past two decades that populations can adapt quickly when selection pressure is strong. 'We're taught evolution occurs over these very, very long time frames. But in systems like these, it's incredibly fast,' Shine, the study co-author, said.[131]”

“'All of a sudden in the last 10 years it changes,' said Skelly. 'They're moving into areas where the physical environment is not like anything in their native range.' That implies that the cane toads have evolved more tolerance for the hotter climates they are now encountering. This is on top of the discovery last year that the toads at the forefront of the invasion had evolved longer legs than those in the interior of their range. The ability of animals to evolve so quickly needs to be factored into invasions, or the dangers of invasive species will likely be underestimated, argue Skelly and his colleagues Mark Urban, Ben Phillips and Richard Shine in an article in the March 28 issue of the Proceedings of the Royal Society-B.[132]”

 

Human Evolution

 

According to the assumptions of evolutionary theory, if evolution always went at the rate that we see today, there should be 160 times more differences between humans and apes. So rather than assume 'the present is the key to the past', scientists then decided that evolutionary rates today have accelerated for some reason.

 

“If humans had always evolved at this rate, the difference between modern humans and chimps should be 160 times greater than it really is. 'We realized we must be in a transient [phase], that evolution hasn't been going this fast for long in our species,' Harpending said. 'And so we wondered why.'[133]”

“'I was raised with the belief that modern humans showed up 40,000 to 50,000 years ago and haven't changed,' explained Henry C. Harpending, an anthropologist at the University of Utah. 'The opposite seems to be true.'... If evolution had been proceeding steadily at the current rate since humans and chimps separated 6 million years ago there should be 160 times more differences than the researchers found. That indicates that human evolution had been slower in the distant past, Harpending explained.[134]”

 

Italian Wall Lizards

 

In 1971, scientists introduced 5 pairs of Italian Wall Lizards to a small island off the coast of Croatia. However, the Croatian War of Independence prevented the scientists from returning to the island for more than 30 years. When the war ended, tourism finally began again in 2004, allowing them to return. The researchers were unsure if the lizards would still be alive. Instead, they found the island swarming with lizards, which genetic testing showed to be descendants of their original 5. The new lizards had wiped out native lizard populations by evolving cecal valves, muscles between the large and small intestines, with which to digest native vegetation, an expanded gut structure, as well as a harder bite.

 

“Italian wall lizards introduced to a tiny island off the coast of Croatia are evolving in ways that would normally take millions of years to play out, new research shows. In just a few decades the 5-inch-long (13-centimeter-long) lizards have developed a completely new gut structure, larger heads, and a harder bite, researchers say... Such physical transformation in just 30 lizard generations takes evolution to a whole new level, Irschick said. It would be akin to humans evolving and growing a new appendix in several hundred years, he said. 'That's unparalleled. What's most important is how fast this is,' he said.[135]”

 

Plant Evolution

 

Contrary to theoretical predictions based on evolutionary theory, genomes for the Angiosperm Silene (a flowering plant) evolved far more rapidly than was expected, as reported in the January 2012 issue of PLoS Biology. Researchers are now trying to find an explanation for why such rapid Microevolution is occurring, and a new model that will avoid such surprises in the future.

 

“Contrary to theoretical predictions, these genomes have experienced a massive proliferation of noncoding content... The evolution of mutation rate, genome size, and chromosome structure can therefore be extremely rapid and interrelated in ways not predicted by current evolutionary theories... We discuss the implications of the unprecedented mitochondrial genome diversity found within Silene and possible alternative explanations for the rapid genome evolution in this genus.[136]”

 

Rodent Evolution

 

A 2009 study observed that rodents evolve at "unprecedented rates" given climate change and population growth, and that rapid evolutionary change in rodents has been occurring for over a century. The article also notes research on rapid Microevolution has previously been "infrequently documented", but that despite this, more and more evidence is cropping up for it.

 

“Our results indicate that over the last 100+ years, rapid morphological change in rodents has occurred quite frequently, and that these changes have taken place on the mainland as well as on islands. Our results also suggest that these changes may be driven, at least in part, by human population growth and climate change.[137]”

 

Irreducible Complexity

 

By irreducible complexity the Creationist refers to aspects of creation that are so complex they indicate a Creator; they are in other words too complex to have arisen from purely naturalistic processes. Darwin himself saw the existence of complex organs/life and instinct in nature as serious problems for his theory, serious enough that he devoted two whole chapters of 'On the Origin of Species' to addressing them, chapter 6, 'Difficulties on Theory', and chapter 7, 'Instinct.'

 

“In the four succeeding chapters, the most apparent and gravest difficulties on the theory will be given: namely, first, the difficulties of transitions, or in understanding how a simple being or a simple organ can be changed and perfected into a highly developed being or elaborately constructed organ; secondly, the subject of Instinct, or the mental powers of animals; thirdly, Hybridism, or the infertility of species and the fertility of varieties when intercrossed; and fourthly, the imperfection of the Geological Record."

-Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species[138]

 

Intelligent Design, as such, is essentially the claim of irreducible complexity that Darwin himself acknowledged was an evidence for Creationism, and a serious problem for the theory of Evolution. The following are some examples of irreducible complexity:

 

Bombardier Beetle

 

The most well-known example of irreducible complexity, and one that Evolutionists are doubtless sick of hearing about, is a small little beetle that shoots a fiery concoction from its behind as a defense mechanism. Using a complex firing system with two sets of spray nozzles, the beetles, which range in size from 2-30 mm in length, fire from 2 to 12 rapid blasts of aqueous benzoquinones, oxygen and steam as hot as 100 degrees celsius (212 degrees fahrenheit). The firing rate can be as fast as 500 pulses a second, and the distance as far as 64 feet with remarkable precision.[139] The chemicals vaporize upon contact with the air.[140]

 

“The spray of bombardier beetles contains p-benzoquinones (10), compounds well known for their irritant properties (11). A single bombardier beetle can discharge upward of 20 times before depleting its glands (6). The discharges are accompanied by audible detonations, and they have been shown to be potently deterrent to a number of predators, including ants (6, 12–15). The spray of bombardier beetles is ejected at 100°C (13). This is because the quinones are generated explosively at the moment of ejection by the mixture of two sets of chemicals ordinarily stored separately in the glands. Each gland consists of two confluent compartments. The larger of these (storage chamber or reservoir) contains hydroquinones and hydrogen peroxide while the smaller one (reaction chamber) contains special enzymes (catalases and peroxidases). To activate the spray, the beetle mixes the contents of the two compartments, causing oxygen to be liberated from hydrogen peroxide and the hydroquinones to be oxidized by the freed oxygen. The oxygen also acts as the propellant, causing the mixture to 'pop' out (16–18). The heat that accompanies the formation of the spray is perceptible (13) and contributes to the defensive effectiveness of the secretion (14, 15)."

-Thomas Eisner and Daniel J. Aneshansley, The National Academy of Sciences[141]

 

Evolutionists like to point out that an initial description of the beetle by Creationist Duane Gish in 1977 was false.[142] Gish mistranslated a German account, and incorrectly claimed the beetles mix chemicals that would otherwise explode without an inhibitor (there appears to be no inhibitor, and hydrogen peroxide and hydroquinone when combined do not explode), a description that has been erroneously repeated by various Creationist organizations as late as 1999.[143] Nonetheless, there nevertheless remains the improbability of such complex mechanics in a small beetle coming about through pure naturalistic chance.

 

“Can you imagine trying to explain all of this intricate design by 'chance evolutionary processes' occurring over millions of years in nature? And yet, evolutionists maintain that there are logical step-by-step explanations for this unique bug’s ability to have a chemical reaction chamber inside its abdomen. The truth is, however, that only intelligent design can explain how the beetle is able to produce the proper chemicals, keep them separate until they are needed, manufacture the right enzymes, and propel the hot mixture into the face of its enemy."

-Bert Thompson and Brad Harrub, Apologetics Press[144]

 

Because there are multiple interworking parts that would make no sense if evolved in isolation, separate chemicals that must be mixed to achieve their reaction, separate chambers to hold them, and a firing mechanism perfectly suited for the whole process, the bombardier beetle is clearly the work of an Intelligent Designer. Needless to say, secular science has not yet decided how such complexity could have evolved. According to Alex James, Ken Morrison, and Simon Todd "the evolutionary pathway and the phyletic relationships between the different species and tribes is still unknown. Some believe that bombardiers have a monophyletic lineage (i.e. the mechanism evolved only once) and that the paussoids and brachinoids are sister groups. Others believe the mechanism evolved separately in the two families of paussoids and brachinoids."[145]

 

The bombardier beetle's firing mechanism is advanced enough that it is still "inspiring designers of engines, drug-delivery devices and fire extinguishers", possibly even mini rocket boosters. As recently as 2008 Biomimetics 3000 Ltd. patented revolutionary new technology based on the tiny beetle.[146] In 2014, ATM Machines are being designed to imitate the beetle's unique firing mechanism.[147]

 

Macropina Microstoma

 

It will be interesting indeed to see how Darwinists attempt to explain the evolution of a fish with a fluid-filled transparent head and 360 degree rotating eyeballs with green lenses. The 6-inch fish is a member of the Barreleye family and lives over 2,000 feet (600 meters) below the surface where very little sunlight reaches.[148] The fish's unique design results in 360-degree vision, dispelling previous claims that its eyes had 'tunnel vision.'[149]

 

“Fish didn’t design their eyes any more than humans designed theirs. Nor would nature be a reasonable candidate for designing such highly-specified structures as the barrel eyes, since there have been no recorded instances—in the lab or in the field—of nature’s processes doing anything but wearing systems down. And the more time allowed for nature to 'work' with, the more broken down the systems become, according to observable science. Design features like tubular eyes could not be the result of unaided, undirected natural forces, which have not demonstrated any capacity to develop anything beneficial or unique and purposive. However, barrel eyes are exactly what would be expected in a world created by an intelligent God who equips His creatures for the specific environments in which they live."

-Brian Thomas, Institute for Creation Research[150]

 

 

Although it was discovered in 1939 scientists didn't know that its eyes could rotate until 2009 when one was captured alive and brought to the surface for study in an aquarium by the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute. Bruce Robison and Kim Reisenbichler used remotely operated vehicles (ROVs) to study the remarkable fish, revealing that the fish typically hang motionless in the water, tracking prey with their remarkable eyes until it swims overhead for easy catching.[151]

 

Lygodium Spider Moth

 

The lygodium spider moth, discovered in Thailand in 2005, has an unmistakable picture of a spider on its wings.[152] The fern-eating moth of the genus siamusotima is unique in other ways as well, its caterpillar form resembles beetle larvae, and its rear end contains armored sections for protection. The moth was originally discovered by scientists M. Alma Solis and Shen Horn Yen in their search for an enemy of ferns troubling Florida's Everglades, and is being researched as a solution to Florida's fern problem.[153] Evolutionists should have their hands full trying to explain how moths would evolve the exact pictures of spiders on their wings, down to the exact number of legs, and even evolve the images of different modern-day spiders... let alone how the moths would evolve the behavior necessary to avoid fleeing and to deceive spiders once they had those images.

 

Nor is the lygodium spider moth even the only moth to mimic spiders. Metalmark moths in the genus Brenthia also mimic spiders with great success, to the extent that spiders captured only 6% of the metalmark moths in trials compared to 62% of regular moths, and 14% of the time even backed away from the spider-imitating moths.[154] And it's not just a one-way street, either, the Ladybird Mimic Spider (eresus sandaliatus), Britain's rarest spider, does an excellent imitation of the common ladybug.[155] There are several spiders which mimic ants, also, such as the ant-mimic jumping spider and ant-mimic crab spider.[156]

 

More Examples of Batesian Mimicry

 

The following are, like the previously mentioned spider moth, more examples of what's known as Batesian Mimicry, creatures that perfectly imitate other organisms or objects, and stretch the limits of Evolutionary credibility:

 

• The macrocilix maia moth gets the prize for creativity by displaying images of two maggots eating excrement on its wings.[157]

• Flower mantises imitate flowers, and amazingly each imitates a different plant. The pink orchid mantis, Hymenopus coronatus, perfectly imitates its namesake.[158]

• The amazing tree stump spider, poltys illepidus, does an impeccable imitation of a broken tree stump, as does the buff-tip moth, phalera bucephala.[159]

• The pupae of the swallowtail butterfly while brown imitates bird poop, and then turns green with black eyespots and imitates snakes.[157]

• There are a number of dead leaf mantises that imitate decaying leaves, some even have the decay spots on their wings.