Reasonable Faith Forum
Welcome to the Reasonable Faith forum! This is a general discussion board on apologetics, theology,... View more
Human Evolution: A description of the failings of the study of Human Evolution.
-
Human Evolution: A description of the failings of the study of Human Evolution.
Human Evolution has failed as an experiment and does not deserve your trust in any way.
Since Darwin published his book, On the Origin of Species, many “ape-men” have been on the market for Human Evolution. Some of the first ape-men were created from living people!
Chinese and Mongolians were assigned Homo flavus and Homo mongolus. Here are all the “scientific” names given to living people:
Homo flavus and Homo mongolus (Chinese and Mongolians)
Homo articus. (Inuit)
Homo americanus and Homo novusmundus (Native American Indians)
…more.
But this has been disproven. These are all Homo Sapiens. They can interbreed, meaning they are the same species. This was an early blunder of the hypothesis of Human Evolution. Because of that idea that people are different species and some are more “primitive”, racism emerged and the horrible period of Eugenics.
Another dark trait of Human Evolution is the fact that modern disproven fossil ape-men took years, decades, and even more than a century to be exposed.
Boskop Man was written about for 50 years, yet now it has been shown to be modern human. Neanderthal Man took around (or more than) 40 years to be challenged, and after the founder died. This is another dark trait. Most scientists, even those that support Human Evolution, cannot have access to the original fossils while the discoverer is alive. Sometimes even the discoverer cannot see the fossils. Then, when access is loosened, only then do they see the problems with the original fossils being interpreted as ape-man. I say “original” fossils because many casts are not reliable and are easily altered so they do not look like the original. See for yourself.
You can look at many disproven ape-men to see.
So we can’t verify Human Evolution. No matter how hard you try, it is almost impossible for you to see the original fossils of modern “ape-men”. Human Evolution is not falsifiable, and therefore is not scientific.
Human Evolution also has sparse evidence. Over 200 ape-men have turned out either to be recently deceased humans, monkey bones, apes, deceased humans from more than 2,000 years ago, non-primate bones, etc.
There are so many I don’t know where to start. Maybe we can talk about some of them.
When looking at this, one may wonder why we trust Human Evolution at all.
Here is a quote from the British House of Commons when Piltdown Man was discovered to be a fraud:
“Mr. Bowles: ‘On a point of order. the terms of this Motion are: “That this House has no confidence in the trustees of the British Museum, other than the Speaker of the House of Cmmons, because of the tardiness of their discovery that the skull of Piltdown Man is a partial fake.”
So true.
Quote taken from: BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE (November 26, 1953) HC Deb 26 November 1953 Vol. 521 cc526-9. Accessed April 22, 2024, from https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1953/nov/26/business-of-the-house.
-
16 Replies
-
This is analogous to me pointing to child abuse in the Catholic church and using this to assert that nobody should believe that Catholicism is true. There is a reason you never see the likes of Craig et al bringing objections like this. They are fallacious. It is analogous to someone pointing to the existence of some failed car prototypes and the existence of some unscrupulous car salesmen and asserting that nobody should buy a car because none of them are safe. In this type of argument, the claimant cherry picks unfavourable data to suggest that a position should be rejected whilst ignoring the other reasons why people (including members of their own demographic) still hold to that position. It is fallacious because for any position, we will be able to find unfavourable data within the history of its development if we dig hard enough.
Cherry Picking (logicallyfallacious.com)
All the mistakes you highlight would have been discovered by scientists, using the scientific method and who did not abandon the theory despite finding these errors, holding to it for other evidential reasons. Some of these people would also have been Christians. Historically, scientists have tried to make ancestral connections based on phenotype (the way things look and physical similarities) and that has often led to some fairly big blunders. But scientists are not doing that anymore and one of the biggest clues has been DNA, which is not as easy to observe as a physical characteristic. DNA investigations have led to the discovery that populations which look nothing alike are more closely related to each other than things which do share many visual similarities!
These objections also totally ignore what we would expect to observe under the alternative proposal. If we could pop back in time, would we expect to see animals popping into existence for seemingly no reason? That’s what we would predict if they were created ex nihilo. The reason we don’t see animals popping into existence for seemingly no reason is because we have no evidence of ex nihilo creation. If we could observe ex nihilo creation happening now it would, ironically, dent our confidence in P1 of Kalam being true because it would be visually indistinguishable from those things popping into existence uncaused and for no reason.
We do at least have evidence that there are heritable changes in populations as they replicate. It can be observed happening. We do, but even if we never had evidence of this leading to speciation (populations that cannot reproduce with each other), change (and thus, variation) via imperfect replication would still have more available evidence than ex nihilo creation and the lack of observed speciation (which there isn’t, but I’m conceding this to present the worst case scenario) would only entail that imperfect replication is an incomplete description of what took place, and not a false one. If I say “my wife is wearing red”, nobody would reject or be sceptical of my claim because it is incomplete (a red dress? a red coat? red shoes?). Our description of what took place has been well verified via means other than those mentioned in the opening post and it is still an incomplete description of what happened, but a description being incomplete does not entail that it is mistaken either. We do observe speciation occurring but even if we never did, that’s as far as the objection would get you because it still has more evidence than the alternative even in a context where that evidence is assumed to be much weaker than it actually is.
logicallyfallacious.com
When only select evidence is presented in order to persuade the audience to accept a position, and evidence that would go against the position is withheld. The stronger the withheld evidence, the more fallacious the argument. Logical Form:
-
“This is analogous to me pointing to child abuse in the Catholic church and using this to assert that nobody should believe that Catholicism is true.”
Is it? Isn’t it more analogous to Catholicism seeing that more of it’s supposed evidences are wrong and faulty evidences at the most ?
“All the mistakes you highlight would have been discovered by scientists, using the scientific method and who did not abandon the theory despite finding these errors, holding to it for other evidential reasons.”
Why didn’t the discovering scientists recognize the errors at first? Why did they have to hide them until they died? Why does Human Evolution have so many instances of this happening?
“These objections also totally ignore what we would expect to observe under the alternative proposal. If we could pop back in time, would we expect to see animals popping into existence for seemingly no reason?”
That is away from the subject. Back to Human Evolution, please.
“We do at least have evidence that there are heritable changes in populations as they replicate….”
Red Herring. I’m sorry, James.
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks, 1 day ago by Levi. Reason: Revision
-
Is it?
Yes. Mistakes made in the history of the development of an idea cannot be taken as evidence that the idea is mistaken, in and of itself; not least because the development of many ideas that we now accept as reliable, had mistakes made during their development.
Why didn’t the discovering scientists recognize the errors at first?
Because they are human and like any other group, make mistakes for various reasons. Pressure to maintain funding by providing results would likely be at the top of the list.
Why did they have to hide them until they died?
Pride? Many people find it extremely difficult to entertain the idea that they are wrong, especially in a context where they have made a very public commitment to something. People don’t like “losing face” and having to admit publicly that they made a mistake.
Why does Human Evolution have so many instances of this happening?
Just about every position has lots of instances of this happening. I don’t know why you think this is so exclusive to the notion of human evolution. Just look at the history of religion. Have you not heard of Mary Bateman and her prophetic chickens? I could provide a long list of charlatans in the history of religion. Should we reject theism or all miracle claims just because of these evidences of fraud in the history of religion? Obviously not.
That is away from the subject.
I’m afraid it isn’t. Even if we grant that the evidence in favour of human evolution is incredibly weak, it still has more evidence than the proposed alternative because we can at least point to some verifiable mechanisms, the structure of DNA and so on. We have no evidential reason for thinking that creation ex nihilo is even possible. That is completely relevant to this discussion.
Back to Human Evolution, please.
I’m protecting you from committing an argument from ignorance. Suggesting that creation ex nihilo should be accepted just because alternate theories are lacking strong evidence.
-
This reply was modified 2 weeks, 1 day ago by
-
-
Neanderthal Man took around (or more than) 40 years to be challenged, and after the founder died.
Are you talking about the Piltdown Man? But this was just one case of hoax, while the are many fossils of Neanderthals found, from Spain to Altai, so their presence is pretty well established. Lately we have also numerous DNA studies on the differences between Neanderthals and modern humans. So how exactly are Neanderthals ‘challenged’?
-
Neanderthal Man took around (or more than) 40 years to be challenged, and after the founder died.
Are you talking about the Piltdown Man? But this was just one case of hoax, while the are many fossils of Neanderthals found, from Spain to Altai, so their presence is pretty well established. Lately we have also numerous DNA studies on the differences between Neanderthals and modern humans. So how exactly are Neanderthals ‘challenged’?
Good question. I was talking about the La Chapelle-aux-Saints skeleton. When the founder died, the scientists were allowed to access it and they saw the whole skeleton was within Human variation.
“Notwithstanding, if he [Neanderthal Man from La Chapelle-aux-Saints] could be reincarnated and placed in a New York subway–provided that he were bathed, shaved, and dressed modern clothing–it is doubtful whether he would attract any more attention than some of its other denizens.” –Dr. William Straus.
Straus, W., & Cave, A. (December 1957). Pathology and the posture of Neanderthal Man. The Quarterly Review of Biology, Volume 32, No. 4, pp. 348-363. Page 359.
-
As I wrote, there are many fossils of Neanderthals that were found in the whole of Europe (and some in Asia). And their DNA was distinctly different than that of the modern human. So what is your exact point?
-
“As I wrote, there are many fossils of Neanderthals that were found in
the whole of Europe (and some in Asia). And their DNA was distinctly
different than that of the modern human. So what is your exact point?”My point was that the skeletal difference is like human and is human (I hope I stated that correctly). By the way, can I verify your DNA claim?
-
Here is an article that outlines the issue quite well:
https://www.nhm.ac.uk/discover/are-neanderthals-same-species-as-us.html
nhm.ac.uk
Are Neanderthals the same species as us?
Prof Chris Stringer addresses this controversial question.
-
Is 2% difference that bad?
-
No, it is not ‘bad’, it is just evidence that hominid DNA have been changing.
-
-
-
Maybe this interlocutor’s thick skull is just a bluff, but maybe not.
-
-
-
-
It also needs to be pointed out that racism predated the theory and therefore influenced the interpretation of data. Racism wasn’t caused by the theory but the pre-existing racist tendencies definitely did influence how data was interpreted at the time. As such, it is no surprise that we see racist attitudes in the early interpretation of data. Even if the theory did have roots in racist attitudes, suggesting that it should be dismissed just because of this is a genetic fallacy.
Genetic Fallacy (logicallyfallacious.com)
When there are funding pressures (for example), a conflict of interest is created and people can be tempted to create a hoax that will temporarily secure more funding, ahead of finding verifiable data … and so on.
None of that is a big surprise and isn’t a problem that is unique to the sciences. Does the Bible never condemning slavery (and even providing instructions on how it should be done) or Craig (and other Christians) defending the slaughter of Canaanite infants and animals constitute reliable evidence that theism must be false? Of course not.
There is just so much wrong with this type of argument. I shouldn’t be surprised that people still argue against positions in this way …. but I am!
logicallyfallacious.com
Basing the truth claim of an argument on the origin of its claims or premises.
-
“It also needs to be pointed out that racism predated the theory and therefore influenced the interpretation of data.”
Didn’t it climax after the theory of Evolution?
“Racism wasn’t caused by the theory but the pre-existing racist tendencies definitely did influence how data was interpreted at the time.As such, it is no surprise that we see racist attitudes in the early interpretation of data. Even if the theory did have roots in racist attitudes, suggesting that it should be dismissed just because of this is a genetic fallacy.”
I know. I was just pointing it out.
<div>”There is just so much wrong with this type of argument. I shouldn’t be surprised that people still argue against positions in this way …. but I am!”
</div><div>The only thing you got wrong is that you misunderstood my intentions. I was just pointing it out, but the main argument was that the idea that different humans were different species was wrong, and it was the start of Human Evolution’s blunders.
</div>
-
-
Racists could use evolutionary theory in attempt to give their racism an appearance of legitimacy, but then people have used the Bible in attempt to do the same thing and with a little research it is easy to cite examples.
As for your intentions, you made them clear in the opening post. To quote:
Human Evolution has failed as an experiment and does not deserve your trust in any way.
You used the mistakes you listed (and the way evolution was used to legitimise racism) in attempt to argue that we should not trust the notion of human evolution in any way. The post completely ignores the reasons why contemporary scientists (including some Christians) believe that humans evolved and that’s a textbook cherry picking fallacy. This occurs when someone picks data that is favourable to a claim in order to support that claim whilst ignoring data that points in the opposite direction.
With regard to the Bible, there is even an egregious double standard on display. Today we consider that owing people as property is immoral. Yet despite this, Biblical writers don’t appear to have been aware of this future change, don’t appear to have any moral difficulties with the notion and not only provide instructions on how to keep slaves but also commands that slaves must obey their masters because Christ requires this. So because the Bible contains clearly racist attitudes (evidenced through what its authors find acceptable), should we not trust anything it says in the Bible by ignoring the bits that don’t fit with this assumption? Of course not! Not only would I not agree with that but neither would any Christians. But with the latter, there is a more serious issue. Some of those Christians (not all) would ask us to assume that we should trust the Bible as completely trustworthy and incapable of error in any of its claims despite the evidence of racism that we find within its pages.
-
“As for your intentions, you made them clear in the opening post. To quote:
Human Evolution has failed as an experiment and does not deserve your trust in any way.
You used the mistakes you listed (and the way evolution was used to legitimise racism) in attempt to argue that we should not trust the notion of human evolution in any way. The post completely ignores the reasons why contemporary scientists (including some Christians) believe that humans evolved and that’s a textbook cherry picking fallacy. This occurs when someone picks data that is favourable to a claim in order to support that claim whilst ignoring data that points in the opposite direction.”
Don’t know what to say to you. I pointed out that racism wasn’t my main point. The point was that Human Evolution had an early blunder at that point, adding to the distrust of Human Evolution.
Why do Christians believe Human Evolution James? If you don’t give me something I can respond to, then what error have I committed? There is too much to be put into one description. How about you give me one reason for Human Evolution, and I respond to it?
The last paragraph is a red Herring. It doesn’t deal with my main point: Human Evolution blundered when it said different races of Humans were different species, starting a whole train of errors committed in the study of Human Evolution, including: Boskop Man, Piltdown Man, Lucy, Tetraprothomo (hope I spelled that right) Argentinus, etc.
-
Don’t know what to say to you. I pointed out that racism wasn’t my main point.
If racism is not the main factor, probably best not to mention it.
The point was that Human Evolution had an early blunder at that point, adding to the distrust of Human Evolution.
It provides no more reason to distrust the theory than blunders made in the history of any other position. In my post above, I mentioned Mary Bateman and her prophetic chickens.
Her chickens laid eggs with a warning on them, that Christ was coming soon. This was found to be a scam. I could provide a whole list. Should we reject all miracle claims just because I can post a list of people who acted without integrity?
Why do Christians believe Human Evolution James?
Because it has some evidence to support it as opposed to none (creation ex nihilo). Evidence, however weak, is still stronger than a scenario that lacks any evidence.
I cannot do the research for you. That is down to you. It is not down to other people on the internet. to do your homework for you.
-
-
Log in to reply.