The Evangelutionist

ANONYMOUS SAID:

“Want to be a scientist for a day? Pick a fossil, Steve. Pick a real one. They have labels and numbers and dig sites and museums... So I'll be waiting for you to pick a bone and pick it apart.”

Picking *a* fossil or *a* bone doesn’t establish an evolutionary *series* or lineal descent. For that would involve a *relation* between several fossils.

Sorry you have so much difficulty following the argument. But I guess we must make allowance for evolutionary throwbacks like you.

“The fossils that scientists call transitionals between humans and apes are real.”

No doubt the *fossils* are real. The issue is your classification scheme.

To establish that they are transitional forms, you would first need to establish lineal descent. Do you have a non-circular argument for that proposition?

And while we’re on the subject, what are your criteria for distinguishing between ecological intermediates (e.g. amphibians) and evolutionary intermediates?

Also, how do you distinguish between a macroevolutionary intermediate and a microevolutionary variant (e.g. subspecies of the horse)?

“Funny how ‘flood geology’ will come in at this point.”

I’m not the one who’s bringing up flood geology: you are—as a diversionary tactic.

The fact that you want to deflect attention away from the actual subject of the thread betrays your inability to address that question.

All you’re doing is to advertise your intellectual insecurity.

FREDK SAID:

“Your bias is totally relevant to any conversation you have concerning any science that contradicts your religious beliefs if you from a theological basis reject anything that contradicts your interpretation of the bible. Any in-depth conversation with you is impossible because it just becomes an assertion war with you poo-pooing any and all science that goes against what you already believe.”

1.To begin with, “bias” is a two-way street. Would you apply the same preemptory dismissal to the arguments of Dawkins, Dennett, or Lewontin on the basis of their irreligious bias?

Or do you give them a free pass because their irreligious bias just so happens to coincide with your own?

2.A blog is a public medium. The point is not whether you can persuade little old me, as if we were having a private conversation—mono a mono.

The point, rather, is whether you can acquit your position for the benefit of all the lurkers who tune into these debates. That’s the target audience.

TOUCHSTONE SAID:

“Here's a link (10 years old!) from Archaeology.org called ‘World's Oldest Spears’:”

http://www.archaeology.org/9705/newsbriefs/spears.html

“So, that's 400,000 years ago, hominins using crafted spears. Now, if that's the case, what does that do for (proto-)man's capabilities? I'd say that a spear more than compensates for a pair of fangs, no?”

A couple of issues:

1.Notice that the Evangelutionist has conceded one of my primary arguments. For one of my basic contentions was that an unarmed man is no match for a major predator like a leopard or lion.

Some of my critics instantly denied my rather common sense observation as if I’d said something totally outlandish. However, the Evangelutionist agrees with me in that respect.

2.Does *a* spear more than compensate for a pair of fangs?

Hmm. Would you go up against a cave bear or a saber tooth tiger or a wolf pack with *a* spear?

“And, I'm wondering what more we need than this. There's plenty of other evidences to look at, but if we understand that hominins were crafting spears a half million years ago, don't we have more than we need to dismiss the idea that early man was defenseless?”

1.Yes, we do need more than this. For one thing, we need to know how they assigned this date to the artifacts. As one of scientists admitted:

“In the absence of age estimates from any absolute dating techniques, Roberts says that the new finds may be only 350,000 years old.”

http://www.sciencenews.org/pages/sn_arc97/3_1_97/fob2.htm

But if they didn’t employ any absolute dating techniques, then how did they come up with any particular estimate?

Is there a follow-up article which goes into more detail?

2.I never said that early man was defenseless. What I said, rather, is that man lacks the natural defense mechanisms of “other” primates.

So, in order to survive, he would need some artificial defense mechanism to compensate for the loss of his natural defense mechanism.

According to evolution, that would be a two-stage process:

i) The development of enough brainpower to invent weaponry and:

ii) The actual development of weaponry.

Timing is everything. So, do we have fossil evidence of a bridging device between the loss of his natural defense mechanisms and his compensatory adaptation? Did these transitional stages overlap?

“We can look at (proto-)man's social and collaborative organization, and the combat advantages of the brain itself, prior to even looking at available weapons. But, really, is anything more needed? If you say yes, I suggest this is one of those easy points to point out your YEC bias!”

The scientific burden of proof is not to point out my YEC bias, if that’s what I have.

Rather, the scientific burden of proof is to furnish specific evidence for specific claims.

“Second, (proto-)humans are social animals, and social in such a way as to make them extraordinarily dangerous and lethal. The ability to communicate verbally, whether looking back at the rudiments of spoken language very far back, or at full blown conversation more recently, the hominid social capability produced a strong survival advantage that other primates don't have.”

I agree with his conclusion. But what about the premise? Does the Evangelutionist have any archeological evidence of “rudimentary speech” 400,000 years ago?

“Third, and which should be so obvious that the original poster appears not to have thought things through before posting this, even without the defensive capabilities of living/traveling/hunting in coordinated teams or using weapons, the enlarged brain itself is the ultimate survival weapon. Long before our brains reached the size they are today, proto-human brains were far larger and more capable than the other beasts in their environment. As such, they possessed a ‘meta-weapon’, the ability to reason and plan in ways that transcended the ferocious capabilities of other animals.”

Ah, shame on me for my silly oversight! How could I have neglected to consider the “meta-weapon” of the brain itself, irrespective of weaponry or teamwork?

Yes sir…just lock an unarmed man in a cage with a Siberian tiger and watch how the “ultimate survival weapon” will best the tiger nine times out of ten. I'd say that a brain more than compensates for a pair of fangs, no?

“We learned the power of human ingenuity tragically on 9/11/2001, as a handful of primitive humans, armed with small, crude weapons, used their brains as weapons of cruelty to bring down the World Trade Center Towers. Proof that fangs and muscle, and even armor or computers are no match for ingenuity, a weapon put to horrifying use on that day.”

Yes, indeed, who can ever forget the horrifying sight of highjackers flying their Stone Age passenger-jets into the Twin Towers?

Or perhaps those were Pterodactyls disguised as passenger-jets.

Clearly I need to get a doctorate in Applied Troglodytology from Fred Flintstone University to keep up my end of the conversation.

Give my regards to Wilma.

On second thought, maybe it was it telekinetic. Using their meta-weapon to project laser-like brainwaves in the direction of the Twin Towers. The rest is history.