Falsehoods In Textbooks - Ten Icons of Evolution - overview - Dr. Jonathan Wells - video
Dr. Wells writes a article defending his criticism against the Ten Icons of Evolution in detail here:
Inherit the Spin: The NCSE Answers "Ten Questions to Ask Your Biology Teacher About Evolution"
Evolution of the Genus Homo - Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences - Tattersall, Schwartz, May 2009
Excerpt: "Definition of the genus Homo is almost as fraught as the definition of Homo sapiens. We look at the evidence for “early Homo,” finding little morphological basis for extending our genus to any of the 2.5–1.6-myr-old fossil forms assigned to “early Homo” or Homo habilis/rudolfensis." *******arjournals.annualreviews****/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.earth.031208.100202
Harvard zoologist Richard Lewontin wrote in 1995 that When we consider the remote past, before the origin of the actual species Homo sapiens, we are faced with a fragmentary and disconnected fossil record. Despite the excited and optimistic claims that have been made by some paleontologists, no fossil hominid species can be established as our direct ancestor.
My Question: HUMAN ORIGINS. Why are artists drawings of ape-like humans used to justify materialistic claims that we are just animals and our existence is a mere acc^id^ent--when fossil experts cannot even agree on who our supposed ancestors were or what they looked like?
NCSE's Answer: Drawings of humans and our ancestors illustrate the general outline of human ancestry, about which there is considerable agreement, even if new discoveries continually add to the complexity of the account. The notion that such drawings are used to 'justify materialistic claims' is ludicrous and not borne out by an examination of textbook treatments of human evolution.
My Response in Outline:
(a) The field of human origins is actually one of the most contentious in biology, because individual researchers interpret the relatively meager evidence on the basis of different biases and preconceptions.
(b) Darwin's followers--like Darwin himself--agree that humans evolved from ape-like animals. This theoretical consensus, however, owes less to the evidence than to materialistic philosophy.
(c) One consequence of this philosophy is the claim that there has been no purpose or direction in the history of life. Many biology textbooks promote this view and use drawings of ape-like humans to convince students that we are no exception to it.
My Response in Detail:
(a) Contrary the NCSE's claim of 'considerable agreement,' the field of human origins (paleoanthropology) is actually one of the most contentious in biology. According to experts in the field, this is because of subjective interpretations of the relatively meager evidence. Berkeley evolutionary biologist F. Clark Howell wrote in 1996: 'There is no encompassing theory of [human] evolution... Alas, there never really has been.' According to Howell, the field is characterized by 'narrative treatments' based on little evidence, so 'it is probably true that an encompassing scenario' of human evolution 'is beyond our grasp, now if not forever.' Arizona State University paleoanthropologist Geoffrey Clark was equally pessimistic in 1997: 'Scientists have been trying to arrive at a consensus about modern human origins for more than a century. Why haven't they been successful?' Clark is convinced it is because paleoanthropologists proceed from different 'biases,
preconceptions and assumptions.' And in 1999 Henry Gee, chief science writer for Nature, pointed out that all the evidence for human evolution 'between about 10 and 5 million years ago--several thousand generations of living creatures--can be fitted into a small box.' According to Gee, the conventional picture of human evolution as lines of ancestry and descent is 'a completely human invention created after the fact, shaped to accord with human prejudices.' 21
(b) Of course, Darwins followers--like Darwin himself--agree that humans evolved from ape-like animals. This agreement, however, represents a theoretical consensus. It does not emerge from the evidence--not the meager evidence for human origins, nor (as we have seen) the evidence from four-winged fruit flies, Darwin's finches, peppered moths, vertebrate embryos, comparative anatomy, or the fossil record of the animal phyla. On what, then, is this theoretical consensus based?
(c) It seems to me that it is based largely on a philosophical commitment--specifically, a commitment to materialism, the philosophical doctrine that the physical universe is the only reality; God, spirit and mind are illusions. One consequence of this doctrine is the claim that there has been no purpose or direction in the history of life. According to the NCSE, the notion that textbooks use drawings of supposed human ancestors to justify this claim is 'ludicrous.' Yet Guttman's Biology (1999) tells students that living things have developed 'just by chance,' by a roll of the 'cosmic dice,' through 'the action of random evolutionary forces.' Miller and Levine's Biology (5th Edition, 2000) asserts that 'evolution works without plan or purpose,' so 'evolution is random and undirected.' Purves, Sadava, Orians and Heller's Life: The Science of Biology (6th Edition, 2001) states that 'evolution is not directed toward a final goal or state.' And all three of
these textbooks include fanciful drawings of ape-like humans that help to convince students we are no exception to the rule of purposelessness.
Some biology textbooks use other kinds of illustrations as well as interviews with famous Darwinists to persuade students that human beings are merely accidental by-products of purposeless natural processes. Raven and Johnson's Biology (5th Edition, 1999) depicts a speculative reconstruction of the famous 'Lucy' fossil after treating students to an interview with Harvard professor Stephen Jay Gould, who tells them: 'Humans represent just one tiny, largely fortuitous, and late-arising twig on the enormously arborescent bush of life.' Campbell, Reece and Mitchell's Biology (5th Edition, 1999) uses drawings of reconstructed fossil skulls rather than whole animals, and features an interview with Oxford professor Richard Dawkins, who declares: 'Natural selection is a bewilderingly simple idea. And yet what it explains is the whole of life, the diversity of life, the complexity of life, the apparent design of life'--including human beings, who 'are
fundamentally not exceptional because we came from the same evolutionary source as every other species.' Our existence was not planned, however, because natural selection is 'totally blind to the future'--the 'blind watchmaker.' For further reading, students are referred to Dawkins's book of that name, in which he writes: Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.' 22
The Truth About Human Origins:
Excerpt: "It is practically impossible to determine which "family tree" (for human evolution) one should accept. Richard Leakey (of the famed fossil hunting family from Africa) has proposed one. His late mother, Mary Leakey, proposed another. Donald Johanson, former president of the Institute of Human Origins in Berkeley, California, has proposed yet another. And as late as 2001, Meave Leakey (Richard's wife) has proposed still another.,,"
“Dr. Leakey produced a biased reconstruction (of 1470/ Homo Rudolfensis) based on erroneous preconceived expectations of early human appearance that violated principles of craniofacial development,” Dr. Timothy Bromage
Stephen Meyer - Functional Proteins And Information For Body Plans - video
The Unbearable Lightness of Chimp-Human Genome Similarity
Excerpt: One can seriously call into question the statement that human and chimp genomes are 99% identical. For one thing, it has been noted in the literature that the exact degree of identity between the two genomes is as yet unknown (Cohen, J., 2007. Relative differences: The myth of 1% Science 316: 1836.). ,,, In short, the figure of identity that one wants to use is dependent on various methodological factors.
Eighty percent of proteins are different between humans and chimpanzees; Gene; Volume 346, 14 February 2005:
The early genome comparison by DNA hybridization techniques suggested a nucleotide difference of 1-2%. Recently, direct nucleotide sequencing confirmed this estimate. These findings generated the common belief that the human is extremely close to the chimpanzee at the genetic level. However, if one looks at proteins, which are mainly responsible for phenotypic differences, the picture is quite different, and about 80% of proteins are different between the two species. *******www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15716009
Bottom Line? The supposed naturalistic evolution of man from apes is IMPOSSIBLE!!!
Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis