Sugar-coated Darwinism

Let me say at the outset that I appreciate the good faith effort which a couple of Darwinian commenters are making to rise to the challenge and lay out the evidence.

“FREDK SAID:
follow this bouncing ball. reposting this response does nothing to further your "cause". Your premise remains nothing more than a dose of sugar to help you swallow your creation story.”

It didn’t take FREDK long to run out of arguments. He shot his wad in the first volley.

Moving along:

ANONYMOUS SAID:

“So Steve, going by your quote, we have little more than a box of identifiable hominid ancestors from between 5-10 million years ago. What of the last 5 million years?”

Fair question. A couple of points:

i) Since evolution is descent with modification, a Darwinian needs to document the earlier stages as well as the later stages to establish that one fossil species is, indeed, a lineal descendent of an earlier fossil species.

ii) Yes, indeed—what about the last 5 millions years?

How many hominian fossils are we talking about? Where did they come from? How were they dated? What was their state of preservation?

Why were they classified as hominian? How are the fossils from one time and place aligned with fossils from another time and place to establish lineal descent?

“Seems from the links and tree you were provided there are a ton of hominid fossils in that time frame, and from my understanding most of the changes leading to what we consider modern humans from our primate ancestor happened relatively recently (last few million years).”

Two problems:

i) The tree I was given is not given in the fossil record. Rather, the tree I was given is 1 part fossil to 99 parts interpolation.

So, is this direct evidence for an evolutionary tree? Or is evolutionary theory picking out a few discrete data-points, then rearranging them into an evolutionary tree according to evolutionary projections?

We have a few fossilized pearls, but the string is supplied by evolution.

ii) To address my original question, we would also need direct evidence that at the time early man was losing his natural defense mechanisms, he had acquired enough brainpower to compensate by the invention of weaponry to repel natural predators and hunt natural prey.

Does the fossil record actually show us such a transition?

“Since our difference in strength is something I've thought a bit about before, I'm sure you could explore it if you wished. First, for some clue on what to look for you'd probably want to explore the structure of muscle on these species,” &c.

How is this relevant to my examples? An unarmed man is essentially defenseless against a leopard, or lion, or pack of cape hunting dogs.

I’m using examples of African predators since Africa supplies the evolutionary point of reference.

Now, one can make allowance for the fact that modern-day predators are not identical with predators concomitant with early man (assuming the evolutionary narrative). But the earlier predators are just as formidable, just as deadly.

Likewise, modern man is not identical with early man (assuming the evolutionary narrative).

But as soon as our evolutionary ancestors leave the safety of the trees, they are easy pickings for the major predators of that time and place.

And they don’t have the natural defense mechanisms of mandrills, baboons, or gorillas.

So, in order for them to survive, you would have to document two stages of development:

i) By the time they came down from the trees, they had the brainpower to invent weapons.

ii) And, in fact, they did invent weapons by the time they came down from the trees.

Do we have fossil evidence for this crucial phase?

Or does the Darwinian simply reason in reverse: given that evolution is a fact, then if our early ancestors survived, they must have had whatever adaptations were requisite for survival.

But why should I buy into that backwards reasoning? It assumes what it needs to prove.

“You could probably also find a way to estimate the interval of these changes and accumulation and map it with say, cranial size changes to see if there is a correlation.”

You would only have evidence of encephalization if you had prior evidence of lineal descent. Absent evidence of lineal descent, you have no evidence that the same species underwent encephalization.

Do you have a non-circular argument for your inference?

Moving along:

“Steve, I must admit that I'm quite puzzled at what you would accept as ‘show us viable intermediates in the fossil records’? You realize that this data, as I pointed out, is based on all hominin fossils? Real, actual fossils?”

Yes, we have genuine fossils. But why do you classify them as hominian fossils?

You could only classify them as hominian fossils if you could establish lineal descent.

But to line up a number of fossils, scattered in time and place, to form an evolutionary sequence, smuggles the conclusion into the evidence.

“You realize that this data, as I pointed out, is based on all hominin fossils? Real, actual fossils? And that their morphology can be correlated by physical anthropological methods, just like anything else in forensic science? You know anything about physical anthropology?”

i) So you’re claiming that comparative anatomy can establish common descent?

I thought that, according to convergent evolution, unrelated taxa (e.g. placentals v. marsupials) may be morphologically alike?

ii) Moreover, how are homologies evidence of common descent?

Why would they not be evidence of common design?

Since there are only a handful of efficient body-plans, we would expect many variations on a few basic designs.

So how do homologies single out common descent over against common design?

“They can literally take a single good bone and tell you a whole lot about the individual it came from -- age of death, evidence of disease, approximate size...”

No doubt they can. But I’d also like to know what bone they’re using for their extrapolations.

“This is how many missing persons are eventually ID'd -- via a few bone fragments that lead back to age, size, approx date of death, etc.”

Sure, but in that case, we already know that the skeletal remains belong to a member of our own species.

And where they don’t, that’s easy to establish as well.

“Learn something about the methods before you criticize them.”

If you think that comparative morphology is sufficient to establish lineal descent, then I don’t believe that I’m the one who needs to bone up (pardon the pun) on the finer points of evolutionary methodology.

“If you are actually interested in studying this out, rather than just debunking evolution (snort chuckle), you can always track down the primary literature cited in those TO articles I linked. They would contain images and modern fossils are always reconstructed very precisely using CAT technology.”

The problem is not with the fossils, but the way in which the Darwinian fills the gaps.

Where does the evidence end and the theorizing begin? What is the proportion of hard evidence to hypothetical interpolations or extrapolations?

Is the evidence shaping the theory, or is the theory shaping the evidence? That’s the question?

“In other words, let's say we have pieces of bones. Put these bones into a CAT scanner. Then, use a simple computer graphics program to generate a mirror immage symmetry of what you see. Then, attach the virtual fossil to the real fossil…Is that ‘not allowed’?”

Allowed for what? To reconstruct a complete skeleton from fragmentary remains?

But that’s not the issue. The issue is correlating fragments from one site with fragments with another to infer an evolutionary series.

One what basis to you intercalate these disparate remains? If you already had a continuous series of fossils, then, perhaps, you could drop these isolated and fragmentary remains into their appropriate slots, but you are attempting do to the opposite: work these remains into a continuous series to form a continuous series in the first place.

How can you sequence the fossils unless you already have the sequence to supply your frame of reference? So which comes first—the fossils or the framework?

Do you have a non-circular argument for your inference?