Beliefs about the origins & development of species, etc.
Menu
Indicators 1 to 7 that evolution of the
species didn't happen, with rebuttals
Sponsored link.
Human footprints have been found beside dinosaur footprints in the
Paluxy riverbed in Texas. This indicates that humans and dinosaurs lived on earth at the
same time. But the theory of evolution shows that the first man evolved tens of millions
of years after the last dinosaur died. Rebuttal: If human and dinosaur footprints were actually found together, a major
setback would be made to the theory of evolution. According to paleontologists, the last
dinosaur died over 60 million years before the first human took a step. There are numerous
locations where dinosaur and human footprints seem to be together. In some locations, the
human footprints appear to be inside the dinosaurs' prints. In the Texas case, some of the
"human" footprints are in reality tridactyl dinosaur tracks that have been
partially filled in by natural processes. Others are simple hoaxes chiseled by humans into the rock. Glen J. Kuban has
written a series of essays devoted to this topic. 1
Scientists have never observed the evolution of one species into another
species. Every species on earth produces only copies of itself, never a new species. Rebuttal: Several "speciation events" have been demonstrated from
direct observation. The evolution of a new species of fruit flies has been
observed in the laboratory 2 Evolution of a
new species of fish from the Tilapia fish in East African lakes has been
studied in the wild. 3,4
Evolution claims that early species of giraffes had short necks - some
longer than others. Individuals with longer necks were able to better reach the leaves on
the trees for food. Neck length had survival value, and so all giraffes eventually ended
up with long necks. Using this belief, evolution would predict that all species of
land animals would end up with long necks. So, evolution is wrong. Rebuttal: Long necks were only an advantage to animals that fitted into a
specific niche: eating the leaves on the top of the trees while standing on the ground.
They evolved into that niche and function quite well. Other animals evolved in different
directions and developed their own methods of feeding.
The current growth rate among human beings is 2% per year. Assume that
the yearly growth rate was only 0.2% in the past. [To use a lower value would benefit the
Evolution theory, because it would indicate that humans have been on earth for a longer
period.] Assuming 5 billion humans today, a 0.2% annual growth rate would mean that there
were 112 million on earth when Jesus was born, 2 million in 2000 BCE, 38,000 in 4000 BCE,
700 in 6000 BCE but only 13 humans in 8000 BCE. That checks out with a Genesis view of the
earth's history, but not with the theory of evolution which says that Homo Sapiens have
been around for hundreds of thousands of years. Rebuttal: The idea of a constant growth rate is nonsensical. If a male and
female were transported to a deserted island, in an age before birth control when the
average woman had, conservatively 6 children, then the population would increase by about
a factor of 3 each generation. Two people would become 6 after 25 years, 18 after 50
years, 54 after 75 years and about 150 after 100 years. Somewhere along the line,
depending on the size of the island, the food resources would become strained and
inadequate to supporting the population. The total number of individuals would stabilize,
and remain at that level. An environmental catastrophe, (as in the case of Easter Island)
might cause the human population to plummet. Or better technology (fishing in boats,
agriculture etc.) would produce more food and allow more humans to be supported. What is
true on the small scale of an island is true of the whole earth itself. Prior to the
distribution of birth control devices and techniques, people had no effective method of
limiting their fertility. Thus, a tribe would quickly increase in numbers until they ran
out of food or were limited in some other way.
S.H. Huse's book "The Collapse of Evolution" talks
about many fossils that were believed to be pre-humans, but did not pan out. Heidelberg
man, Nebraska man, Piltdown man all were eventually shown to be other than predecessors of
homo sapiens; many were revealed to be hoaxes. Rebuttal: These are cases of the scientific method working as it
should. Some investigator believed that he/she has found a fossil that will tell us of our
origins. Other scientists look at the data and decide that it is without value.
Occasionally, one of these "finds" pans out. The data becomes generally
accepted, and our knowledge of evolution increases. But there are countless blind alleys
for each important discovery.
Sponsored link:
Dr. A.J.E. Cave gave a paper at the International Congress
of Zoology in 1958 in which he concluded that a skeleton found in France was not an
Neanderthal but was of an elderly human who suffered from arthritis. The implication is
that Neanderthals never existed. Rebuttal: Neanderthal and homo sapiens' skeleton look somewhat alike. That is to be expected because
modern humans and Neanderthals share a recent common ancestor who lived around 465,000 to 600,000 years ago. However, many dozens of Neanderthal fossils have been found. Even if Dr. Cave's conclusions became
confirmed by other scientists, then there are still plenty of "real"
Neanderthals around which prove that the species did exist at one time, and were a different species from modern humans. A sufficient numbers of Neanderthals have been studied so that a list of distinctive Neanderthal features have been identified. reports:
- Robust finger bones;
- Enlarged rib cage, with barrel-chested build;
- Stout, bowed femoral shaft;
- Dorsal sulcus on scapula for more muscle attachments;
- Relatively short, bowed scapula;
- Long pelvic pubis;
- Relatively short tibia and fibula;
- Low forehead with occipital bun;
- Lack of chin;
- Long clavicle and large shoulder joint;
- Large and thick patella;
- Occipital depression;
- Supraorbital torus;
- A mastoid crest located behind the external auditory meatus;
- Absence of a canine fossa;
-
Presence of a retromolar space. 5
The Cro-Magnon's brain capacity is at least equal to
Homo Sapiens. The implication is that homo-sapiens has not evolved from the Cro-Magnon. Rebuttal: According to About.com:
"Recent research over the past 20 years or so ... has led scholars to believe that the physical dimensions of so-called 'Cro-Magnon' are not sufficiently different enough from modern humans to warrant a separate designation. Scientists today use 'Anatomically Modern Human' (AMH) or 'Early Modern Human' (EMH) to designate the Upper Paleolithic human beings who looked a lot like us, but did not have the complete suite of modern human behaviors." 6
Even if we assume that humans descended from Cro-Magnons, your
reasoning is not valid. The term "brain capacity" refers to an estimate of
the brain size based on the internal volume of the skull. It is not a measure of
the Cro-Magnon's thinking capacity. The Neanderthals had big brains also, but
archaeological evidence indicates that they were constructed differently from homo-sapiens'
brains; their internal "wiring" was
different. They lacked our ability to visualize, to plan ahead, etc.
References:
-
Gene Kuban, "The Paluxy Dinosaur/"Man Track"
Controversy" at: http://www.talkorigins.org/
-
T. Dobzhansky, & O. Pavlovsky, "An experimentally created incipient species
of Drosophilia", Nature 23, P. 289-292 (1971)
-
J.P. Franck, et. al., "Evolution of a satellite DNA family in
tilapia." Annual Meeting Canadian Federation of Biological
Societies. Halifax, (1990).
-
M. Losseau-Hoebeke, "The biology of four haplochromine species of
Lake Kivu (Zaire) with evolutionary implications." Thesis, Dept
Ichthyology, Rhodes University, Grahamstown, (1992).
-
"F-3 Neanderthals," Ecotao Enterprises, 2009-NOV-17, at: http://www.ecotao.com/
-
K. Kris Hirst, "Why Don't We Call Them Cro-Magnon Anymore?
What are 'Anatomically Modern Humans'?," About.com: Archaeology, at: http://archaeology.about.com/
Copyright © 1996 to 2010 by Ontario Consultants on
Religious Tolerance
Last updated: 2010-JUL-24
Author: B.A. Robinson 
Sponsored link
|
Page Translator: