Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Historical insights & thoughts about the world we live in - and the social conditioning exerted upon us by past and current propaganda.
dblitz
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by dblitz »

Hybridisation doesn't work because you need more than one species to make a new one, so where do the first two different species come from? They can't come from hybridisation can they?. Can't work.
Seneca
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by Seneca »

agraposo » 15 May 2017, 12:19 wrote:
Seneca » 13 May 2017, 23:04 wrote: I think you misunderstand the point. It is not a list of coincidences between a human and another animal. It is a list of differences between humans and chimpanzees. And yes this includes naked skin, eyebrows, nocturnal activity and tears. And it happens that the common pig seems to possess all these traits as well. If somebody can find another animal that has even half of these traits I would be very happy, but I don't think there isn't.
I don't think that trait list is enough to conclude that the human parent is the pig. With the same logic, the zebra's parents would be the horse and the tiger, because the horse has not stripes, and the tiger has stripes. This is a simplistic example, but I hope you understand my point.
This seems a strawman argument. You don't give any arguments, you just give a very bad analogy and then draw conclusions about that.
Besides, the assumptions made by the macroevolution.net site author, that humans are hybrids and that the chimpanzee is one of the parents, can be false, as the same author says. If those assumptions are false, then the whole site would be full of nonsense.
Obviously, his assumptions can be false. That is how science works. You make a hypothesis and then see if you or someone else can falsify it. Or if someone can come up with an explanation that fits the data even better.
Even id this turns out wrong, there are many other interesting facts and hypothesis on the website, as I have tried to show earlier.
To support that humans are hybrids, he thinks that the human species is somewhat infertile, and that the human sperm is abnormal. Really? With some billions of people populating the planet?
Yes really. There is a very wide range between infertility and normal infertility and beyond. If there is anything that nature will select against it will be low fertility or infertility. In other words it is hard to pass this trait on to the next generations. Yet, after so many human generations, for example in Sweden, 10% of couples who want children are infertile. I think that is significant but there can be other causes.
And that the chimpanzee is our ancestor, maybe in Darwin's times that idea was popular, but not today, even among scientists.
What scientists are you talking about? It is definitely still very popular, although some prefer the gorilla or the orangutang for some reason. Is that what you mean?
So, my conclusion is that both hypotheses are false, and that the site is full of nonsense. The question is why the site's author dedicates so much effort to spread false science.
You haven't given a better explanation, for example for the origin of humans.
Seneca
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by Seneca »

dblitz » 15 May 2017, 22:08 wrote:Hybridisation doesn't work because you need more than one species to make a new one, so where do the first two different species come from? They can't come from hybridisation can they?. Can't work.
Hybridisation doesn't work? Then where do mules come from? or Ligers? or Grapefruit? Or bread wheat? Or peppermint?
dblitz
Member
Posts: 248
Joined: Sat Apr 27, 2013 2:32 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by dblitz »

I mean it cant work as the origin of species. The process requires multiple species while trying to explain multiple species. Hope that's clearer.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by agraposo »

Seneca » 15 May 2017, 22:31 wrote:
agraposo » 15 May 2017, 12:19 wrote:And that the chimpanzee is our ancestor, maybe in Darwin's times that idea was popular, but not today, even among scientists.
What scientists are you talking about? It is definitely still very popular, although some prefer the gorilla or the orangutang for some reason. Is that what you mean?
Mainstream science states that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, now extinct, not that humans evolved from any current species of ape. The chimpanzee is an extant species, if it is our parent, it should be easy to mate a pig and a chimpanzee right now to produce a human. Do you know if this has been tested?
Seneca
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by Seneca »

agraposo » 16 May 2017, 03:28 wrote:
Seneca » 15 May 2017, 22:31 wrote:
agraposo » 15 May 2017, 12:19 wrote:And that the chimpanzee is our ancestor, maybe in Darwin's times that idea was popular, but not today, even among scientists.
What scientists are you talking about? It is definitely still very popular, although some prefer the gorilla or the orangutang for some reason. Is that what you mean?
Mainstream science states that humans and chimpanzees have a common ancestor, now extinct, not that humans evolved from any current species of ape. The chimpanzee is an extant species, if it is our parent, it should be easy to mate a pig and a chimpanzee right now to produce a human. Do you know if this has been tested?
Yes you are right. Mainstream science proposes that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. I forgot about that. BTW no fossil has ever been found of this common ancestor, not even a faked one.

As far as I know of this has not been tested and McCarthy has strong ethical objections, he doesn't want to have anything to do with it. To be clear, the hypothesis is not that the first human was the offspring of a chimpanzee and a pig. But that this first hybrid back-crossed with chimpanzees for a few generation which commonly increases fertility.
Last edited by Seneca on Tue May 16, 2017 9:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: Re2: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by agraposo »

Seneca » 16 May 2017, 07:40 wrote: BTW no fossil has ever been found of this species, not even a faked one.
Yes!. And is interesting to note that some authors consider hybridization as a possibility genetically speaking. Not even remotely I study nothing related with genetics, as there is so much deception, for example in virology (e.g. AIDS, hepatitis) or biopharmaceuticals (e.g. monoclonal antibodies). But that's a discussion for another topic!
Seneca
Member
Posts: 511
Joined: Wed Oct 21, 2009 2:36 pm
Contact:

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by Seneca »

dblitz » 15 May 2017, 22:08 wrote:Hybridisation doesn't work because you need more than one species to make a new one, so where do the first two different species come from? They can't come from hybridisation can they?. Can't work.
dblitz » 15 May 2017, 23:14 wrote:I mean it cant work as the origin of species. The process requires multiple species while trying to explain multiple species. Hope that's clearer.
It is still not entirely clear but I think you mean that it can't explain the origin of every "species". That is right. McCarthy proposes what he calls stabilisation processeses, including hybridization andpolyploidy only as an explanation for the emergence of new 'species'.
He admitted in an e-mail conversation that he can't explain the existence of the first species or the first forms of life.
So what I wrote about a month ago still stands:
Seneca » 23 Apr 2017, 11:38 wrote: I am only reading and thinking about this (the ideas of Eugene McCarthy) for a few days. As far as I can tell, he doesn't try to explain the origin of life or the origin of the oldest organisms. I don't think his work is incompatible with intelligent design. It is more compatible than conventional evolution theory.

For example, based on a different interpretation of fossils, he rejects the idea of Neo-Darwinians that all mammals evolved from a single ancestor. Instead he shows how many different types of animals, that are currently living came from very similar creatures that existed earlier and whose fossils are wrongly attributed to reptiles or "dinosaurs". As an example let's look at fossils of ancient winged creatures called Pterosaurs. Mainstream science thinks these were flying creatures that went completely extinct (even birds didn't evolve from them). Also according to mainstream theory, mammals grew wings that gradually improved until they could fly and thus evolved into bats. Despite that no fossils of intermediate forms are found. Eugene McCarthy questions the claim that these Pterosaurs were reptiles. He argues that they probably were mammals and they "evolved"* into bats. The differences between the 2 kinds are not that big.
Another example: whales.
widely accepted theory claims that whales are descended from a tiny, shrewlike animal, and that the whole transformation required only 10 or 20 million years. ...
"They fail to mention, or perhaps do not realize, that whalelike, whale-sized creatures existed already in the Cretaceous, prior to the Paleocene."

He goes on to explain the similarity between these "extinct reptiles" and modern whales and argues that it is more likely that these types of animals "evolved" into whales.
This is from chapter 9 of his book "forms of life", that PianoRacer linked to in his first post. http://www.macroevolution.net/support-f ... f_life.pdf A shorter version can be found here: http://www.macroevolution.net/mesozoic.html

This is not incompatible with the idea of a creator that has created a limited number of life forms of which some can interbreed. It also isn't incompatible with an other idea, I don't know if it has a name. The idea that the universe and life have always existed. We think that these both have to have a beginning but for me there is no compelling reason why this should be. And perhaps also no evidence, since the big bang is probably a hoax.
*I am using the word evolved between parentheses because it has not the same meaning as we are used to.
aa5
Member
Posts: 282
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 3:03 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by aa5 »

On human near infertility. If gradual Darwinian evolution was the whole story, near all human females would be nymphos who would get knocked up on virtually every cycle when they weren't already pregnant. What we see in reality is most women have marginal fertility & next to no sex drive in comparison to females of ancient animals like chimpanzees.
Flabbergasted
Administrator
Posts: 1244
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2012 12:19 am

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by Flabbergasted »

aa5 wrote:What we see in reality is most women have marginal fertility & next to no sex drive [...].
We must live on different planets, aa5. Where I live, fertility is certainly not marginal, and female sex drive is more like permanent overdrive. No exceptions I can remember.

You may be seeing the damage caused by processed foods, artificial environments, social engineering and spiritual alienation. Not an evolutionary issue.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by agraposo »

patrix » 19 May 2017, 13:28 wrote:
agraposo » May 19th, 2017, 12:01 pm wrote: Dind't you say that Andreas Moritz's liver cleanses are dangerous?
I was trying to be funny/ironic and assumed you where too.
Ok. Andreas Moritz was another charlatan and book seller, in my opinion. In his books he is very critic with drug therapies, but I was astonished to find that he promotes as a healing system to look at paintings! It's called Ener-Chi Art. What a nonsense.

http://www.ener-chi.com/
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by agraposo »

hoi.polloi » 18 May 2017, 21:57 wrote:Sometimes I really wish we had more of the fairer sex posting on our forum.
"Crushing evolution theory is fun and easy"


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ukVQC9X8Ss

Funny video about evolution and the hybridization nonsense.


full link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5C0LFW8ZIE0

At 8:50: "If you have talent writing children's stories, but are worried the field is too competitive, think seriously about a career in evolutionary biology".

And see at 9:00 the next logical evolutionary step for our supposed parent, the pig.

At 9:15, the ancestor of primates.

At 12:10, humans are not covered with fur like all the apes.

At 13:40, the aquatic ape theory.

At 15:30: "We got smart from eating fish and living in water".

Long but entertaining article that demolishes evolution theory:
http://newgeology.us/presentation32.html
hoi.polloi
Member
Posts: 5060
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 7:24 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by hoi.polloi »

@ 17:27 "Saying bats evolved sonar to catch moths in the dark is like saying a canvas evolved paint to portray mythical scenes."

Although I respect what you've posted here, I must say as skeptical scientists looking into evolution they could be using much better language. I know what they are trying to say, but they are not articulating it well and I think we could do better if we had more conversations about this.

One of the main things I am attracted to in the video is the first part, where it says we do not see the "midway" points between vastly different species said to be connected. This is a majorly flawed argument on two points. (Not because of its correctness or incorrectness but because of how it fails to satisfactorily explain these points).

1. The evolutionary beneficial mutation is said to be "randomly mutating" and kept in check by various co-evolving species due to the active life of organic living cells, substances, tissues and so on. So comparing a hypothetical modus of deconstructed versions (e.g.; paper made from organic plants, paint from polymers and/or organic/processed substances) to the active living cells we can observe in action seems wrong.

It is apparent to me that if we are to discuss evolution, regardless of the talk of another force — a force for life or metaphysical force or otherwise, then we must acknowledge that even evolutionists imply some "special" quality to life that makes it capable of evolution and meaningful mutation. As weird as that is, the discussion of evolution often misses the greatest question, which is what gives life its special ability to change. This is not really discussed; it is just implied that life can evolve because it is substances with life force. DNA, molecular chain reactions and so on might be the atheistic explanation.

2. The idea that horses became foxes or something else seems to be a straw man. Or at least, to pick the most absurd suggestions is to miss the point of a lot of evolutionary ideas. From my understanding, though I am not saying it makes logical sense without a much more involved explanation, the concept (at least) is that things co-evolve and determine each other's evolutionary paths through a kind of constant competition and change. There is no fictional "isolated" evolution as the video makes countless examples of. This is missing the point. The idea behind evolution is that the special qualities of living organisms causes them to branch off and sort of flower into various dead ends.

I am not saying this makes sense, nor that we can prove that DNA is still spontaneously emerging from a primordial soup, nor that this DNA will again launch into a billion successful paths that will also lead to ultimate extinctions. I am just saying that people criticizing the existing theory should not exaggerate, and that maybe we would be better served in at least acknowledging the exact problems with the theory's incompleteness. I hope this makes sense and this doesn't sound stupid.

I recognize many problems and questions I have with/for evolutionary theory. But I don't think the video articulates them in the most incredible way.
agraposo
Member
Posts: 267
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2011 9:48 pm

Re: Devolving Darwin (Evolution and other flawed origin stories)

Unread post by agraposo »

hoi.polloi » 22 May 2017, 04:34 wrote:Although I respect what you've posted here, I must say as skeptical scientists looking into evolution they could be using much better language. I know what they are trying to say, but they are not articulating it well and I think we could do better if we had more conversations about this.
I just say it was funny to watch these videos. :)
One of the main things I am attracted to in the video is the first part, where it says we do not see the "midway" points between vastly different species said to be connected. This is a majorly flawed argument on two points. (Not because of its correctness or incorrectness but because of how it fails to satisfactorily explain these points).
Of course, this was realized by Darwin in his Origin of Species book, and he dedicated a lot of pages to discuss all these inconsistencies, saying at the end that the problem was the inaccurate geological record. Well, 158 years later, the fossils of intermediate species are still missing. Others would say that the theory was incomplete, and now they call it Neo-Darwinism, and that the new theory is much better, and so on.

If the videos were not serious enough, maybe the information in this web site is better articulated. It contains reviews of more books about evolution that I could read in my whole life.

http://wasdarwinwrong.com/index.htm#Reviews

Just an example:

http://wasdarwinwrong.com/kortho18.htm

Chapter 8: The Fossil Record
The shortest possible summary of this chapter is: intermediates have not been found because they never existed! Only someone like Denton can think this, and interpret the data accordingly. That is what he does in this chapter on the age-old problem of the missing links in the fossil record.
Maybe that site can be used by interested people to find information about specific problems with the evolution theory that have been dealt with by other persons before.
Mansur
Member
Posts: 210
Joined: Sat Aug 18, 2018 9:22 pm

Re: Advanced Building Technology in Remote Antiquity?

Unread post by Mansur »

I think that the following circumstances and statements should not be ignored in any way, even if the “Java man” is the only chapter to be read.

Wanted to make some bold - that seemed even bolder than the rest, - but then the whole text seemed to be highlighted…
[Cremo:] “…Some might question why we would put together a book like Forbidden Archeology, unless we had some underlying purpose. Indeed, there is some underlying purpose.

Richard Thompson and I are members of the Bhaktivedanta Institute, a branch of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness that studies the relationship between modem science and the world view expressed in the Vedic literature. This institute was founded by our spiritual master, His Divine Grace A. C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, who encouraged us to critically examine the prevailing account of human origins and the methods by which it was established. From the Vedic literature, we derive the idea that the human race is of great antiquity. To conduct systematic research into the existing scientific literature on human antiquity, we expressed the Vedic idea in the form of a theory that various humanlike and apelike beings have coexisted for a long time.

That our theoretical outlook is derived from the Vedic literature should not disqualify it. Theory selection can come from many sources - a private inspiration, previous theories, a suggestion from a friend, a movie, and so on. What really matters is not a theory's source but its ability to account for observations.

Our research program led to results we did not anticipate, and hence a book much larger than originally envisioned. Because of this, we have not been able to develop in this volume our ideas about an alternative to current theories of human origins. We are therefore planning a second volume relating our extensive research results in this area to our Vedic source material.

Given their underlying purpose, Forbidden Archeology and its forthcoming companion volume may therefore be of interest to cultural and cognitive anthropologists, scholars of religion, and others concerned with the interactions of cultures in time and space.
[...and “Space!” – let's take a look at the “Vedic alternative!”]

At this point, I would like to say something about my collaboration with Richard Thompson. Richard is a scientist by training, a mathematician who has published refereed articles and books in the fields of mathematical biology, remote sensing from satellites, geology, and physics. I am not a scientist by training. Since 1977, I have been a writer and editor for books and magazines published by the Bhaktivedanta Book Trust.

In 1984, Richard asked his assistant Stephen Bernath to begin collecting material on human origins and antiquity. In 1986, Richard asked me to take that material and organize it into a book.

As I reviewed the material provided to me by Stephen, I was struck by the very small number of reports from 1859, when Darwin published The Origin of Species, until 1894, when Dubois published his report on Java man. Curious about this, I asked Stephen to obtain some anthropology books from the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. In these books, including an early edition of Marcellin Boule's Fossil Men, I found highly negative reviews of numerous reports from the period in question. By tracing out footnotes, we dug up a few samples of these reports. Most of them, by nineteenth-century scientists, described incised bones, stone tools, and anatomically modern skeletal remains encountered in unexpectedly old geological contexts. The reports were of high quality, answering many possible objections. This encouraged me to make a more systematic search… “
And the very first words of the abridged (popular) edition:
Foreword by Graham Hancock (Author of Fingerprints of the Gods)
It is my great pleasure and honor to introduce this abridged edition of Forbidden Archeology. Let me say at the outset that I believe this book to be one of the landmark intellectual achievements of the late twentieth century. It will take more conservative scholars a long while, probably many years, to come to terms with the revelations it contains. Nevertheless, Michael Cremo and Richard Thompson have put the revelations out there and the clock cannot now be turned back. Sooner or later, whether we like it or not, our species is going to have to come to terms with the facts that are so impressively documented in the pages that follow, and these facts are stunning. Cremo and Thompson's central proposition is that the model of human prehistory, carefully built-up by scholars over the past two centuries, is sadly and completely wrong. Moreover, the authors are not proposing that it can be put right with minor tinkering and adjustments. What is needed is for the existing model to be thrown out the window and for us to start again with open minds and with absolutely no preconceptions at all. This is a position that is close to my own heart…
Is Mr. Cremo really a neglected person and the case he represents is really a neglected case, even at the university level? Let’s not forget it’s a bestseller that runs out of millions of copies.
Post Reply