origin of man2

8/10/2019 Origin of Man2

1/64

Mike Riddle

[email protected]

www.train2equip.com


2/64

School textbooks Mechanisms for development and change

A history of apementhe track record

Neanderthals

Australopithecines and Lucy

Rearranging the data

Theme: Great claims require GREAT evidence


3/64

Look closely at your hand. You have fiveflexible fingers. Animals with five flexible

fingers are called primates. Monkeys, apes, and

humans are examples of primates.Primates

most likely evolved from small, insect-eating

rodentlike mammals that lived about 60 million

years ago.

Biology

Visualizing Life,Johnson, Holt, Rinehart, &

Winston, 1998, p. 213.


4/64

But all researchers agree on certain basic

facts. We know, for example, that humansevolved from ancestors we share with otherliving primates such as chimpanzees and apes.

Biology, Miller and Levine, Prentice Hall,2000, p. 757.


5/64

Ramapithecus .. Ape

Piltdown Man .. Hoax

Nebraska Man . Pig Java Man . Gibbon

In each case the date (age)

was completely WRONG!

What about the dates?


6/64

The second possible ancestor of apes and humanslived slightly later - from about 17 million years to7 million years ago. Called ramapithecines,

Biology: The Web of Life, Daniel D. Chiras, WestPublishing Co., 1993, p. 758.

Great claims require GREAT evidence


7/64

A mechanism to create information (DNA) Mechanism to overcome the Second Law of

Thermodynamics

A mechanism for change (biological evolution) Natural selection

Mutations

Mechanism for natural processes to cause non-living chemicals to bond to form a living cell

(chemical evolution)


8/64

Mutations arise either through spontaneous errors duringDNA replication or later, through the effects of physical or

chemical agents on DNA.

The Nature of Life, John Postlethwait and Janet Hopson, McGraw-

Hill, 1995, p. 256.

If there were no mutations heritable changes in the

genetic informationthere would be no evolution.

LIFE: The Science of Biology, Purves, Orians, and Heller, Sinauer

Associates, Inc., 1992, p. 261.


9/64

Some contemporary biologists, as soon as they

observe a mutation, talk about (macro)evolution. This logical scheme is, however,unacceptable:

first, because its major premise is neither obviousnor general; second, because its conclusion doesnot agree with the facts. No matter how numerousthey may be, mutations do not produce any kind of

evolution.

Pierre Paul Grasse (Zoologist, he held the Chair ofEvolution at the Sorbonne for 30 years),Evolution of

Living Organisms, 1977, p. 88.


10/64

But in all the reading Ive done in the life-

sciences literature, Ive never found a mutation

that added information

All point mutations that have been studied on

the molecular level turn out to reduce the

genetic information and not increase it.

Lee Spetner (Ph.D. physicsMIT),Not By Chance,1997, pp. 131, 138.


11/64

that the development and survival of the fittestis entirely a consequence of chance mutations, or

even that nature carries out experiments by trial

and error through mutations in order to create

living systems better fitted to survive, seems to be

a hypothesis based on no evidence.

Ernst Chain (Biochemist and Nobel Prize winner),

Responsibility and the Scientist in Modern Western Society,

London: Council of Christians and Jews, 1970, p.25.


12/64

Mutations are rare phenomena, and a simultaneouschange of even two amino acid residues in one protein is

totally unlikely. One could think, for instance, that by constantly changingamino acids one by one, it will eventually be possible tochange the entire sequence substantially

These minor changes, however, are bound to eventuallyresult in a situation in which the enzyme has ceased to

perform its previous function but has not yet begun itsnew duties. It is at this point it will be destroyed along

with the organism carrying it.

Maxim D. Frank-Kamenetski, Unraveling DNA, 1997, p. 72.

(Professor at Brown U. Center for Advanced Biotechnology andBiomedical Engineering)


13/64

Why would the evolution process develop a

mechanism that prevents change?

DNA has a built-in mechanism to proofreaditself during replication.


14/64

The principle of natural selection, now widely

accepted as a main mechanism behind evolution in

nature, can explain adaptations such as the long

neck of giraffes.

The Nature of Life, John Postlethwait and Janet Hopson,

1995, p. 18.



15/64

Ability to adapt to the environment

Survival of the fittest

Can natural selection cause one kind

(species) to become a new kind?

Natural selection ONLY works with

existing information

Genetic Variation


16/64

Natural selection can act only on those biological

properties that already exist; it cannot create

properties in order to meet adaptational needs.

Elmer Noble, Ph.D. Zoology, Glenn Nobel, Ph.D.Biology, Gerhard Schad, Ph.D. Biology, AustinMacInnes, Ph.D. Biology, Parasitology: The Biology of

Animal Parasites, 1989, p. 516.


17/64

I would therefore argue that the very concept

of natural selection as defined by the neo-

Darwinist is fundamentally flawed.

Neil Broom,How Blind Is the Watchmaker, 2001, p.165. (Ph.D. Chemical and Materials Engineering)


18/64

While Darwins model of natural selection is the

one usually presented in basic textbooks of

biology, it has been much criticized recently for avariety of reasons. It has a fatal flaw when it

comes to the question of the gradual development

of biological systems

Ariel Roth (Ph.D. Biology),In Six Days, 2000, p. 90.

Continued next page


19/64

The parts do not function until all theinterdependent parts are present and the system

works and provides some survival value to the

organism.

The problem is that the very system of natural

selection which Darwin proposed will tend toeliminate the interdependent parts of complex

systems as these systems develop.



20/64

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999

If evolution is true

Natural selection

eliminates harmfuldisordersMuta

tionsand

disorders


21/64

12000

10000

8000

6000

4000

2000

0

1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 1999

MIME

ntries

Mendelian

Inheritance in Man

Observed data

encyclopedia of human

genes and the disorders


22/64

Macroevolution

Microevolution

Genetic variation

Natural selection

Random errors in DNA, NOT

evolution

One species changing into anew species

Variability within kind


23/64


24/64


25/64

Original Drawing of Neanderthal

Illustrated in the London News 1909


26/64

A new version ofNeanderthal based on thesame skeleton. Published in1911 in theIllustrated

London News

Neandertal: From

Biology The Web of Life

textbook, 1993


27/64

Neanderthal man,

reconstructed from askull found in La

Chapelle-aux-Saints,

France

Reconstruction of a four

year old Neanderthal childfound at Gibraltar


28/64

Constructed to look ape-like

Brain capacity about 100-200 cc larger

Used jewelry

Used musical instruments Did cave paintings

Capable of speech

Buried their dead

Initial construction discovered to be wrong

First found near Dusseldorf, Germany in 1856


29/64

What makes a Neandertal a Neandertal is not its

size or its strength or any measure of its nativeintelligence, but a suite of exquisitely distinctphysical traits, most of them in the face and

cranium.James Shreve, The Neandertal Enigma,1995, p. 2.


30/64


31/64

Lower jaw 30 mm (over an

inch) out of the socket

Flat, human

appearance


32/64

Thick brow


33/64

B. Endo, Experimental Studies on the MechanicalSignificance of the Form of the Human Facial Skeleton,J. Fac. Univ. Tokyo, 1966.

Biochemical models have

demonstrated that chewing muscles

working through the teeth generatesintensive concentration of compression

in the nasal and forehead regioni.e. a

bigger brow ridge.


34/64

Hooten and Dupertuis, Age Changes and SelectiveSurvival in Irish Males, Studies on Physical

Anthropology, American Assoc of Physical

Anthropology and Wenner-Gren Foundation, 1951.

In 1951, two scientists using 10,000 men,

discovered that continued facial growthcontinued into the sixth decade.


35/64

Appearing first in Europe about 120,000 yearsago, the Neandertals flourished through the

increasing cold of an approaching ice age,

James Shreve, The Neandertal Enigma, 1995, p. 5.

The shaded

area indicatesthe known

range of

Neanderthals


36/64

If early human populations were very small andisolated from one another, gradually each would

accumulate different losses [in mitochondrialDNA] until they all came to look really differentfrom each other because of the drift.

Nothing in the new data rules out the possibilitythat Neandertals interbred with ordinaryHomosapiens, which would make them part of the samespecies.

R. Ward and C. Stringer, A molecular handle on the

Neanderthals,Nature,p. 225226.


37/64

Neanderthal anatomy differences are extremely

minor and can be for the most part explained as aresult of a genetically isolated people that lived a

rigorous life in a harsh, cold climate.

Dave Phillips (Physical Anthropologist), NeanderthalsAre Still Human, Impact Article #223, May, 2000

Cold climates, Eskimos, and Neanderthals Stocky body build and short extremities

Body weight larger


38/64


39/64

Lucy discovered in 1974 About 40% of the fossil was found

Claimed to be 3.5 million years old

Claimed to bipedal (walked upright)


40/64

No similarity in appearance to humans Long arms are identical to chimpanzees

Jaws are similar to chimpanzees

Upper leg bone is similar to chimpanzees Lucys legs were very ape-like

Brain size (400-500 cc) overlaps chimpanzees

Large back muscles for tree dwelling Hands similar to pygmy chimpanzee

Feet were long and curved


41/64

Drawing fromLife: The

Science of Biology,

Purves, Orians, andHeller, 1992, p. 604.

This restoration must have come as something of asurprise to anatomists Jack Stern and Randall Susman,

who, in their 1983 study published in theAmerican Journal

of Physical Anthropology, described the anatomy of Lucys

speciesAstralopithecus afarensis. They described Lucyshands and feet as being long and curved, typical of a tree-

dwelling ape.

Richard Milton, Shattering the Myths of Darwinism, 1997, p. 207.


42/64

1987, Charles Oxnard (Professor of Anatomyand Human Biology) Computer analysis

1992,American Journal of PhysicalAnthropology, Walked like chimpanzees

1993, Christine Tardieu, (Anthropologist)reported, Its locking mechanism was notdeveloped.

1994,Journal of Human Evolution,ABiochemical Study of the Hip and Thigh

1999, a new discovery causes doubt about Lucy


43/64

I walked over to the cabinet, pulled out Lucy, andshazam!she had the morphology that was classicfor knuckle walkers.E. Stokstad, Hominid Ancestors May Have Knuckle Walked,Science, 2000.

Regardless of the status of Lucys knee joint,new evidence has come forth that Lucy has themorphology of a knuckle-walker.

Richmand and Strait, Evidence that Humans Evolved from

Knuckle-Walking Ancestor,Nature, 2000.


44/64


45/64

Lucy seemed to be more of a promotion to

convince the public that Johansons fossilswere more important than Richard Leakeysrather than an attempt to present an

evenhanded assessment of currentpaleoanthropology.

William Fix, The Bone Peddlers, 1984, p. xxii.


46/64


47/64

In 1977, human footprints were found atLaetoli by Mary Leakey (northern Tanzania)

Dated between 3.5 and 3.8 myo

A total of 69 prints over 30 yards

Mary Leakey described them as Remarkably

similar to those of modern man.

Mary Leakey, Footprints in the Ashes of Time,

National Geographic, April 1979, p. 446.


48/64

The uneroded footprints show a total

morphological pattern like that seen in modern

humans.

T. D. White,Lucy, the Beginnings of Mankind, p. 250.

Make no mistake about it, They are like

modern human footprints.

T. D. White, Science, 1980, p. 175.


49/64

In sum, the 3.5 million-year-old footprint traits atLaetoli site G resemble those of habitually unshodmodern humans. None of their features suggest thatthe Laetoli hominids were less capable bipeds thanwe are.

If the G footprints were not known to be so old, wewould readily conclude that they were made by amember of our genusHomo.

R. H. Tuttle,Natural History, March 1990, pp. 61-64.


50/64

In 1965, the lower end of an upper arm bone

was found in Kanapoi, northern KenyaKP

271 fossil

Dated at 4.5 myoWhat was it?

Computer analysis revealedThe results show that the Kanapoi specimen,

which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is

indistinguishable from modern Homo sapiens

Henry McHenry, Fossils and the Mosaic Nature ofHuman Evolution, Science, 1975, p. 428.


51/64

The humeral fragment from Kanapoi, with a date of

about 4.4 million, could not be distinguished fromHomo sapiensmorphologically or by multivariateanalysis by Patterson and myself in 1967.

We suggested that it might representAustralopithecusbecause at that time allocation toHomo seemed preposterous, although it would be thecorrect one without the time element.

William Howells, Homo erectusin Human Decent: Ideasand Problems,Homo erectus: Papers in Honor of

Davidson Black, 1981, pp. 79-80.


52/64

The fossils provide much more discouragement

than support for Darwinism when they areexamined objectively, but objective examinationhas rarely been the object of Darwinistpaleontology.

The Darwinist approach has consistently been tofind some supporting fossil evidence, claim it asproof for evolution, and then ignore all the

difficulties.

Philip Johnson,Darwinism on Trial, 1991, p. 84.Graduate of Harvard U., Law Professor at U. of Berkeley


53/64

Watusi

Pygmy

Dwarfism

Basketball players

Eskimo (Inuit)

Billy Barty

3-foot-9

Shaquille

Oneal

7-foot -1


54/64

Claims of facts that were wrong Misinterpretation of data

Not reporting data

Censorship of data Incorrect information in textbooks

Rearranging data to support evolution

How trustworthy are evolutionists claims?


55/64

Rather, they have gone there, weighed natural

selection for what it truly isa simple deductive

formulaand came away empty-handed.

William Dembski (Ph.D. Mathematics) and James

Kushiner, Signs of Intelligence, 2001, p. 143.

Thus, those biologists who argue, like the

Austrian evolutionary theorist Gerhard Muller,

that the origin of new morphological characters is

still unexplained by the current synthetic theory,

have not neglected to read Darwin or Dawkins.


56/64

Lack of factual intermediates

No mechanism for change

No explanation for increased specified

complexity and information

The history (fossil record) of humans

and apes supports:

In the Beginning God created



57/64

One of the main reasons our youth are

leaving the church is that they cannot defend

a belief in the Bible

What can be done?


58/64

Video course: Three hours of

instructional video

Student manual

Instructor guide

CD-ROM with teaching

tools

Student Manual


59/64


60/64


61/64


62/64

How many generations would it take for a

creature like Lucy to evolve into a modern

human?

Background Information

Lucy is claimed to be 3.5 million years old

Apes are claimed to be 3% different from

humans

A Case Study


63/64

Let each generation be 20 years

Triple the time to 10 million years

Let every generation get one beneficial

mutation for 500,000 generations

10 million years

20 years =500,000

generations


64/64

A human DNA molecule contains about

3-billion bits of information

3% of 3-billion = 90 million differences

One beneficial mutation per generation (every20 years) for 500,000 generations (10 million

years) affects less than 1% of the genome

It would take 180 beneficial related mutations

per generation

origin of man2

Documents