The Evidence of Human Evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger

by Disillusioned JW 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    Here is an image of Professor Ronald Clarke posing here with the skull of StW 573 Australopithecus.

    What makes you think this is a transitional human ancestor fossil? Is this your best example of darwinian evolution?

    Professor Ronald Clarke with Skull

    The other Australopithecus that you mentioned (LUCY), has Non-Upright Walking Chimp-like Features: Photos of Lucy's sloping skull and recreation that minimizes that chimp-like feature...

    Things evolutionists downplay or simply don't share with the museum-going public about LUCY:

    Lucy had:

    - "locking wrists" for knuckle-walking
    - an inner ear, for balance, oriented like knuckle-walking chimps
    - the skull attachment for the inner ear like knuckle-walking chimps
    - curved hands surprisingly (to some) similar to tree-climbing chimps
    - long and curved toe bones, even by ape standards
    - a sloping chimp-like face fronting a chimp-sized brain

    If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck .... what makes you think its not an ape?

    Evolutionists seem to march to the beat of a different drum than the rest of us. For some of them, if it doesn't walk like a duck.... they just fix it with a power saw until it does. You can't make this stuff up:

    Is this how you put your puzzles together DJW?

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    The more hominid fossils are found the more various transitional features of human evolution are found. We see more steps in the transition when we see fossils of more hominid species. That is what I meant by "... the evidence of human evolution keeps getting stronger and stronger." It is not about one hominid fossil being by itself being better evidence than prior discovered fossils (though some fossils are better than others in showing the evolution), but rather it is the increasing variety of hominid fossils which amounts to the fossil evidence of human evolution getting stronger and stronger. It is like the assembling of more pieces of a jigsaw puzzle results in a better and better picture of the puzzle. It is also like getting higher and higher resolution photographic images results in a picture that is better and better.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    Sea Breeze, the articles I posted links to mention the human-like features of "Little Foot". One thing which to me is more human-like about it than the Lucy fossil is that the "Little Foot" cranium has a considerably higher vault (above the eye brow ridge) than does the Lucy fossil. Also while it and Lucy both have a human-like pelvis (unlike nonhuman apes), the "Little Foot" fossil has a somewhat divergent toe, than does Lucy's species and modern humans. As a result, the foot of the "Little Foot" fossil is more intermediate (in regards to transitional features) between non-human apes and modern humans, than are the fossils of Lucy's species.

    In mentioning the Lucy fossil you mention ape-like features (except that regarding the first three, I don't recall ever reading about such features of Lucy from a scientific book or scientific article about evolution) while avoiding the mention of human-like features. For examples, you did not mention the following: the human-like proportions of the teeth (including the canines); an aspect about the skull Lucy's species which shows it was mounted much more vertically on the spinal column than in apes [namely, the foramen magnum and occipital condyles were anteriorly sited, as in humans, though perhaps at an angle intermediate to that of apes and of humans]; the human-like shape of the pelvis (well you mentioned the pelvis, but in an incorrect way); the human-like relative length of the toes of the feet, the human-like alignment of the big toe relative to the other toes, and the human-like shape of the ends of the leg bones.

    It is largely the mosaic of ape and human features which provide both the "Little Foot" fossil and the Lucy fossil (along with fossils of other members of Lucy's species) with part of the evidence of evolution of humans from nonhuman apes.

    Furthermore, the skull you show displayed to the right of a reconstruction of Lucy is not the fossil (nor a cast) of Lucy's skull (though perhaps it is a fossil of some member of Lucy's species, or perhaps a different reconstruction than I am familiar with). The fossil remains of Lucy's skull were not anywhere near that complete as that of the skull image you provided. Furthermore, a composite skull made of multiple members of her species, which I saw in books, looks more human in shape than the skull you show.

    Regarding the foramen magnum and occipital condyles being anteriorly sited in Lucy's species and in other Australopithecus species, like in humans (though I think I read it is to a degree which is intermediate between apes and humans), see and . The latter says "In all fossil hominids the foramen magnum and occipital condyles are positioned further anteriorly than in great apes."

    It appears you obtained your list of Lucy's features from one or more young earth creationist sources, perhaps from . That source has both the images you attribute to Lucy and the source says it obtained its information from "the president of Genesis Apologetics". That web page also lists the exact same list of 6 features, in the same order, which you listed in your post.

    Your reference of "they just fix it with a power saw until it does" is probably referring to some creationists' claim of what was done to the fossil pelvis of Lucy and a creationist's misrepresented video segment of a NOVA TV show. But their claim is false. Instead it was done to a plaster cast of the fossil pelvis of Lucy. The proof of that is in the full first episode of the NOVA TV show called "In Search of Human Origins". The transcript of it is at . There the transcript says the following.

    "DON JOHANSON: ... Superficially, her hip resembled a chimpanzee's, which meant that Lucy couldn't possibly have walked like a modern human. But Lovejoy noticed something odd about the way the bones had been fossilized.

    OWEN LOVEJOY: When I put the two parts of the pelvis together that we had, this part of the pelvis has pressed so hard and so completely into this one, that it caused it to be broken into a series of individual pieces, which were then fused together in later fossilization.

    DON JOHANSON: After Lucy died, some of her bones lying in the mud must have been crushed or broken, perhaps by animals browsing at the lake shore.

    OWEN LOVEJOY: This has caused the two bones in fact to fit together so well that they're in an anatomically impossible position.

    DON JOHANSON: The perfect fit was an allusion that made Lucy's hip bones seems to flair out like a chimps. But all was not lost. Lovejoy decided he could restore the pelvis to its natural shape. He didn't want to tamper with the original, so he made a copy in plaster. He cut the damaged pieces out and put them back together the way they were before Lucy died. It was a tricky job, but after taking the kink out of the pelvis, it all fit together perfectly, like a three-dimensional jigsaw puzzle. As a result, the angle of the hip looks nothing like a chimps, but a lot like ours. Anatomically at least, Lucy could stand like a human."

    Many of the claims of young earth creationist apologists about the evidence pertaining to evolution are lies and/or misrepresentations - and the WT uses the same tactics as them and has even quoted from their publications. Some creations don't know that a number of claims made by other creationists are lies and/or misrepresentations, but they unfortunately spread them. I discovered so many of the creationists claims are lies and/or misrepresentations, as a result of my research pertaining to evolution versus creationism.

  • ThomasCovenant

    Silent buddha asked

    ''Where is cofty? I don't believe he isn't in this thread somewhere.''

    Yes, a great pity really. But if you look at his last post, he said,

    ''I stopped posting after reading that post too.

    I will continue to check in to catch the latest news from the insane world of the Watchtower.

    I have mostly enjoyed years of conversation and debate here, as anyone can see from my history. I hope some of my threads on WT doctrine and science have helped some.

    I can't no longer be part of the irrational and hateful environment that has come to dominate this forum.''

    I think this was referring to Simon's ( the forum owner) posting inferring that people with 'left ' wing views were paedophiles.

    Simon said, ''Biden is a sick idiot. Is there anyone on the left who doesn't want to fuck children in one way or another?

    Throw a brick at an Antifa mob and it's pretty guaranteed you'll hit a pedophile''

    Pity really.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze

    So, Lucy which is supposedly much younger than Little foot couldn't walk upright as well as Little Foot (who is supposedly much older) and had other features more ape like than the "older" Little Foot?

    Aren't the features supposed to be more human like the younger they are, as they "evolve"? This data really isn't helping your argument in support of evolution.

    Just a reminder: Evolution theory conveniently starts with life already here. It starts with an incredibly complex cellular structure with thousands of irreducibly complex physical features that are interdependent. To illustrate the principle of irreducible complexity think about a common mousetrap with five interacting parts: a base, hammer, spring, catch, and holding bar. Each part is necessary, and there is no mouse-catching function unless all five parts are present. A trap with only four parts doesn't just catch mice poorly, it doesn't catch them at all !

    In other words, Evolution starts with ignoring tens of thousands of Chicken and Egg problem scenarios like this.

    Human Cell:

    And, keep in mind that this is just the hardware. The information needed to make the parts function would take a person typing a fairly good rate more that 50 years to complete if working 8 hours a day, 7 days a week. I have the book, "In the Beginning Was Information". I recommend this book for anyone interested in the failures of Evolution Theory to account for the information needed for evolution to even begin. Of course, evolution CONVEVIENTLY starts AFTER THIS POINT IN TIME. That's not good enough for me and shouldn't be good enough for any thinking person.

    You also state on this thread: "There is also the evidence from genetics of existing species".

    Yes there is. The study of genetic populations is the final resting place for Darwin.

    Evolution relies upon copying mistakes in the genome (mutations) that accidentally have some beneficial feature that gets introduced into an individual. Then, because the mistake was beneficial to natural selection in some way, it gets passed onto offspring and over time inhabits an entire genetic population, so the story goes.

    Mutations (copying mistakes) themselves happen at known rates and the vast majority are harmful (many would argue ALL). A very generous rate of "beneficial" copying mistakes is around one per million.

    With this data, the questions arises: How long would it take for a single "beneficial" copying error to be homogeneous to a genetic population?

    Renowned Cornell Geneticist - J.C. Sanford has published over 80 scientific publications in peer reviewed journals and is the inventor with his colleagues at Cornell University of the gene gun, a prototype of which is housed in Washington D.C.'s Smithsonian Museum. Sanford's book, Genetic Entropy, is a must read for anyone considering Evolution as a paradigm for understanding our existence.

    Dr. Sanford shows scientifically that even starting with all the cell structures needed, and even starting with all the information needed, there simply is not enough time in the universe to allow for the millions of mutations needed in order to change one species into another.

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze


    Dr. Sanford granted an interview here .

    His landmark lecture at the Natl. Institute of Health puts the final kabash on Evolution. It is a failed ideology.

    From MANY points of view : Cellular, Information and now Genetics, Evolution utterly fails to explain how we got here. When viewed through the lens of real science, Evolution has become, in my opinion, little more than a fairy tail for adults.

    Bob Enyart and Fred Williams, hosts of real science radio have accepted my invitation to come speak at a conference I am organizing on Aug. 13-15 in the San Antonio / Austin area in Texas. I'll post event information on this forum soon.

  • pistolpete

    From MANY points of view : Cellular, Information and now Genetics, Evolution utterly fails to explain how we got here. When viewed through the lens of real science, Evolution has become, in my opinion, little more than a fairy tail for adults.

    Sea Breeze, I personally give evolution a 50/50 probability of life evolving. I read some information on it but for some reason it does not interest me that much for me to dedicate hrs of research on the subject.

    On the other hand I don't believe in the God of the bible either. I "Feel" meaning with no evidence, that there Was or is a Creator, but not like the Creator Humans describe as benevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent.

    I'm a possiblian, meaning there are so many scenarios on how life could have started or evolved that it is actually impossible at this point in human history to claim for a certainty that we know how life on earth started.

    I feel that many Scientist who are bent on saying evolution is a fact as well as creationists and their view, feel that there is no need to discuss the subject of how life started any further because they got it all figured out

    TRUE SCIENCE is about "Creativity of making NEW HYPOTHESIS, - IT'S THE TOLERANCE OF HOLDING MULTIPLE HYPOTHESIS AT THE SAME TIME. Then trying to duplicate their hypothesis in a lab.

    And the reason for having this frame of mind is because at this point we know to little to commit to anything in particular.

    I really like it when true Scientists, whether in the field of biology, neuroscience, or Biology admit that there are still to many HOLES in the theories of Creation and Evolution.

    Here are a couple of examples with men in different fields who are very vocal in just saying;

    We Still Don't Know!

  • Sea Breeze
    Sea Breeze
    We Still Don't Know!

    But at least we can now scientifically know what it is not.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW


    I am impressed that Little Foot's legs were longer than her arms, in contrast to those of Lucy. I am also impressed that Little Foot's species was a better walker than a number of Australopithecus species (possibly including Lucy's).

    The features of Little Foot relative to those of Lucy do not pose a problem for evolution theory. Scientists, to my knowledge, are not claiming that Lucy's species evolved from Little Foot's species. Instead of evolving from Little Foot's species, Lucy's species could have evolved from a species which coexisted (for a period of time) with Little Foot's species, or from a species which evolved from a species which had coexisted (for a period of time) with Little Foot's species. Evolution proceeds in multiple directions, and largely as an adaptation to the local environment. In one environment having the anatomy of Lucy could have been more advantageous than having the anatomy of Little Foot. Whereas in a different environment the opposite could have been true. For example, monkeys and chimpanzees are better adapted/suited to living in their tree top environment (and to climbing tree limbs and walking on tree limbs) than humans are of living in the same environment (and to climbing tree limbs and walking on tree limbs), but humans are better adapted/suited to walking on land than are monkeys and chimpanzees.

    Though biological evolution started with life which already existed, theories (or hypotheses) of chemical evolution (including abiogenesis) deal with how life could have come into existence from non-life. Considerable progress has been made in learning how that could have happened, though much more needs to be learned. Furthermore, according to evolution theory the first cellular life to exist on planet Earth was very likely far less complex than the simplest cellular life which currently exists on Earth. Biological evolution does deal with (instead of avoiding) the idea of what the earliest type of cellular life on Earth might have been; and it also deals with what precellular types of early life might have been. It does not ignore those issues.

    Regarding the idea of irreducible complexity, all proposed examples of such have been disproved by some scientists (though a number of proponents of irreducible complexity disagree with the claim). Evolution can take a biological part that serves one function and then later use if for another function. Later changes in the part can evolve to become better at doing the new function than was originally the case. Regarding the idea of the mousetrap, scientists have shown that if certain parts are removed from the mouse trap the device can serve a different function - one such function is as a spit wad shooter. In fact the device is far better as a spit wad shooter if certain parts are removed from the mouse trap.

    I could continue to address each of Sea Breeze's points one by one, but I don't want to take the time to do so, since there other things I want to do with the free time of my life. Likewise if I address each of his/hers current points on this topic, the person will likely bring up more points (young Earth creationist apologists are known to do such - it is like a game of wack a mole). As a result I prefer to refer inquiring open minds to various books which already address the claims made by creationists and proponents of intelligent design. As result, if I refrain from refuting future claims of Sea Breeze pertaining to evolution, that does not necessarily mean I don't know how to refute those claims (nor does it mean I can't find answers which refute those claims).

    The following are some books I recommend for inquiring open minds who wish to know what answers scientists have in refutation of the claims of creationists and proponents of intelligent design. They also have scientific explanations in support of chemical evolution and biological evolution. These books are ones which I read (at least in part) to answer my own questions and to see how well abiogenesis and biological evolution stand up to the claims of their critics and to make sure if my conviction of philosophical naturalism is firmly grounded (in regards to the subject of how the various kinds of life came to exist). A number of them also address supposed chicken and egg problems.

    - Creation: How Science is Reinventing Itself, by Adam Rutherford

    - Why Darwin Matters, by Michael Shermer

    - Only A Theory: Evolution and the Battle for America's Soul, by Kenneth R. Miller

    - "DECODING The Language Of God: Can A Scientist Really Be A Believer? A Geneticist Responds To Francis Collins", by George C. Cunningham, MD, MPH

    - God, the Devil, and Darwin: A Critique of Intelligent Design Theory, by Niall Shanks (see )

    - "Why Evolution Is True" by Jerry A. Coyne

    - "Evolution and the Myth of Creationism: A Basic Guide to the Facts in the Evolution Debate", by Tim M. Berra

    There are also other books I read on this topic, and also science magazine articles I read on the topic, but at the moment I don't recall the names of those books and articles.

  • Disillusioned JW
    Disillusioned JW

    I regret saying in the above post the following: "(young Earth creationist apologists are known to do such - it is like a game of wack a mole)". That is because it was not relevant in the context I used it in. Also the name of the game is apparently spelled "Whac-A-Mole" instead of wack a mole.

Share this