One reason I was drawn to Nadia Drake’s National Geographic article National Geographic Human Evolution 101 of September 11, 2015 AD it sought to offer “some background that will help put” Homo naledi in context and I have done some writing about H. naledi which you can find here.
It is asserted that Homo naledi is “the newest branch on our family tree” even though this is a jump to conclusions—the same one made any time anything is found which is not immediately identified as some known animal that is in the least bit monkey-like, ape-like or human-like.
By referring to “human evolution,” seeking to review “some of the basics they’ve forgotten” about it and elucidating why “scientists” all of them I suppose are “certain that human evolution happened” we are in the realms of employing a term but not bothering to define it—let us see if she does so as she goes on.
First up is the statistically impressive sounding claim that “We share nearly 99 percent of our genetic sequence with chimpanzees and bonobos” which to must people is just that: an impressive sounding statistic. There are various ways to look at this such as that organisms that perform similar functions will, of course, have similar genetics much like two cars build by different companies have very much in common. Yet, note Nadia Drake’s statement on this which is that it “strongly suggests we share a common ancestor” and yet, it also strongly suggests we share a common creator. For details on this issue, see Greater than 98% Chimp/human DNA similarity? Not any more.
She then notes that “there are thousands of fossils documenting progressively more human-like species in the evolution of our lineage after it split” ultimately from an unknown, unproven, un-evidenced, unobserved, crypto-zoological, mythical chimera called a “common ancestor.” Yet, in any case, documenting progressively lineage evolution really means that someone looked a bones, skeletons and genetics and subjectively interpreted the actual evidence via the prevailing orthodoxy which is the worldview-philosophy of evolution—biology is a science but evolution is just that, a worldview-philosophy.
With regards to Skull 1470:
“One point of uncertainty was the angle at which the face attached to the cranium. Alan Walker remembers an occasion when he, Michael Day, and Richard Leakey were studying the two sections of the skull. ‘You could hold the maxilla forward, and give it a long face, or you could tuck it in, making the fact short,’1 he recalls. ‘How you held it really depended on your preconceptions. It was very interesting watching what people did with it.’ Leakey remembers the incident too: ‘Yes. If you held it one way, it looked like one thing; if you held it another, it looked like something else. But there was never any doubt that it was different. The question was, was it sufficiently different from everything else to warrant being called something new?’”2
Next we run into the definition of evolution which Nadia Drake has in mind as she notes that “Biologists have actually observed evolution happening” with the example being, “the recent emergence of antibiotic-resistant microbes” about which she actually states that this “is a form of evolution.” Well, one problem with discussing this issue is that there are so very many definitions of evolution which is why before engaging in such discussions terms must be defined. For example, some will generically define it as any and all biological changes through all of history. The advantage of this is that anything and everything can be said to be evidence of evolution. Yet, this is clearly useless as a standard, a metric, an actual scientific tool.
When it comes to such discussions I go with a definition which goes back to Darwin and define it as the origin of species from other already previously existing species (with “species” being another term that must be defined). This was the original point of evolution and why, for example, most evolutionists will say that abiogenesis (life from non-life) is not an issue for evolutionists but is a chemistry issue. Well the reason that it is only “a form of evolution” when antibiotic-resistant microbes emerge is that they are still microbes and do not change from non-microbes into microbes and then into other non-microbes.
We are then told “animal breeders make evolution happen all the time” which makes the necessity of defining terms even more apparent. Pray tell, what are animal breeders? Well, they are intelligent human beings who pick and choose, unnaturally select, which animals to breed with the planned forethought of arriving at a certain goal. This is 100% the opposite of evolution—even though this example goes back to Charles Darwin himself. Evolution is supposed to be a random accidental chance process with no mind involved, no volition, no planning, no purposeful interference, no pre planned goal, etc.—that is evolution 101. In fact, later on she will note, “Animal breeders selectively breed animals that have the traits they want; that’s artificial selection.”
Now, for some odd reason the article has a subjection titled, “Is evolution at odds with the Bible?” but not one asking if evolution at odds with the Qur’an or any other religious text. Nadia Drake instantly jumps to the issue of that “if you think the Bible has to be interpreted literally. Evolution contradicts the Genesis story…” Great admission and yet, she does not define literalism which really means to take a text as it is intended via a consideration of genre, historical, cultural, grammatical context, etc. Now, she concludes the sentence “…the Genesis story” with “that God created all organisms in their present form” which means that her knowledge of creationism or creation science dates back to about when powdered wigs were in style. The basic understanding, a literal one at that, is that God created all basic kinds of organisms which they reproduced after their kind and this leads to change over time within those kinds (and “kinds” are defined as organisms that can reproduce with each other).
She then concludes that “you can believe in God without believing that the Bible is literally true” which is a throw away statement and that is the end of the subsection.
Then we come to the section that will explain “how does evolution work?” wherein she refers to “random mutation” but focuses on “favorable mutations” which, of course, is the unstated problem. Favorable mutations are statistically irrelevant as the utterly overwhelming mutations we observe are deleterious. For example, one mutation keeps humans from being susceptible to malaria and so it is counted as “favorable” and yet, this very same mutations leads to sickle cell anemia which is deleterious. Bombarding fruit flies with radiation can result in one being born with four wings and yet, we cannot even know if that is beneficial to the fruit-fly as it is merely a repetition of the information already contained with the genes to build wings—but there is no musculature attached to the wings so they are a useless appendage (and more biologically expensive to maintain).
This section ends with the claim that “Over enough time, the process can even produce new species.” Now, in reality this is a “faith” based assertion even though she points us to claim which is all the rage now a days that dinosaurs slooooooowly turned into birds.
Next we are told about “major milestones in human evolution” which is a clever way to admit that there are no missing links but that the whole chain is missing. In other words, since there is no actual elucidation of human evolution—only ever changing claims by various people who contradict each other’s tall tales—there are only supposedly alleged milestones.
She begins with presupposing abiogenesis, of course, and somehow apes are in existence—recall the origin of species from already previously existing ones—and so we have humans ex machina, “The human lineage diverged from that of apes” within a date range of 7,000,000 years ago or twice as long 13,000,000 years ago—’cause, like, whose counting? She also tells us that our first ancestors lived “anywhere from 1.8 million to around 800,000 years ago” so a date or ONE MILLION more years than that date.
First up, as diverging from apes, is australopithecines such as the monkey known as “Lucy.” As Lucy’s discoverer Donald Johanson put it “The fossil finders themselves have often brought with them their own personal prejudices and beliefs…We see discoveries as bolstering our specific interpretation of what the family tree should look like”3—for more similar statement by Johanson, et al., see here.
She then references various other candidates for a chain in human evolution but only focuses on when technology such as “The ability to make stone tools…harnessed fire…the invention of cooking,” etc. came into being. Yet, this is more of a side issue distraction since, for example, Neanderthals (basically humans suffering from rickets) practiced ritual burial, made jewelry, made musical instruments, etc., etc., etc.
She basically ends with illogical and ill-bio-logical claims such as that it may be that “cooking allowed us to gain more energy from meat, which fueled the dramatic evolution of the human brain. Bigger brains and more dexterous hands” but this is a Darwinian tall tale since one could have a brain the size of a house but if that brain is not attached to a body which is made up of genetics which contain the info for more dexterous hands then more dexterous hands will not result. This is what modern (actual) science has taught us: everything is based on preexisting information.
Nadia Drake ends the article by proving that most pop-“science” “reporting” is inaccurate (or, that neo-evolutionists are shying away from their previous claims) in stating that the answer as to “Why haven’t scientists found a ‘missing link’ between apes and us?” is that “Because there isn’t one” and that is because “Chimpanzees (or other apes) didn’t evolve into humans. Both lineages descended from a common ancestor and went their separate ways.” Yet, it could be argued that since both lineages descended from a common ancestor means that the common ancestor is the missing link. In fact, she asks who is “the missing progenitor of both chimps and humans?” and replies, “We don’t know yet.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
A plea: I have to pay for server usage and have made all content on this website free and always will. I support my family on one income and do research, writing, videos, etc. as a hobby. If you can even spare $1.00 as a donation, please do so: it may not seem like much but if each person reading this would do so, even every now and then, it would add up and really, really help. Here is my donate/paypal page.
Due to robo-spaming, I had to close the comment sections. However, you can comment on my Facebook page and/or on my Google+ page. You can also use the “Share / Save” button below this post.