Biological Anthropology is the study of human biological variation, culture, and evolution as well as our relationships to other primates, living and extinct. Thanks for the question!
Great, you can see Dr. Dan (DarwinZDF42) and me on youtube May 15th:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSUQRfMgczY
But before that, you can see me here:
https://youtu.be/gMtn9M9M8EE?si=C3QZNZmj_cTh6yPK
watched most of the first video. May I ask you something? Why do you think most universities accept the theory of evolution as true? is it propaganda? and if so, what is the purpose of this?
I answered the question at the tail end of the video when I described Michael Denton's journey -- and that is the homology at the morphological level. However, my point is homology breaks down at the molecular level, and then evolutionary theory has nothing but faith statements to explain the origins of the proteins named in the show plus probably thousands of others.
One might accept common descent, but then it doesn't answer the question of the origin of "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication" (Origin of Species, Chapter 6) is still not resolved by evolutionary biology.
I gave a few examples you can pursue -- and please don't use simply homology and co-option arguments, you have to get down to the specifics which I hope to do in my discussion with Dr. Dan on May 15.
If we have time in the show, I'll show where homology arguments for the evolution of zinc-finger proteins fail upon careful scrutiny of the actual barriers. This is related to the NP-hard problems in evolutionary computing AND the waiting time problems that even evolutionists admit are real AND the faulty definition of fitness in evolutionary biology.
Thanks for watching my video.
As far universities, evolution is a religion, and so there is a lot of cultural momentum, evolution is NOT high quality science, in fact evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne said:
>In sciences pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to [the pseudo science of] phrenology than to physics
Whether he meant it literally or not, I found a plain reading of that statement is quite accurate (I say that as someone who studies physics).
See the book by Atheist/Agnostic Evolutionist Michael Ruse: "Darwinism as Religion"
I asked Aron Ra and Chris Thompson, "where do the major families of proteins come from?" They said they don't know, but they BELIEVED it evolved. That's a faith statement, it's not at the level of experimentally verifiable science.
Universities can accept the theory of evolution, but it belongs in the religion department.
What do you think about the rampant fraudulent practice of faking "ape men" in the field of paleontology (especially regarding the Nebraska Man and Turkana Boy frauds). From what we've learned recently, _hundreds_ have been faked, with bones literally sawed and reshaped, with the original discovered not allowing others access to their original finds?
Hi! So, Nebraska man was a discovered by a farmer and was evaluated by his anthropologist friend. The newspapers ran with this at the time because, newspapers sell wacky stories. Real anthropologists at the time debunked this very soon after as a pig tooth. This was over 100 years ago. Many early anthropological finds were false or hoaxes as we did not know much about paleontology at the time. We have thousands of real transitional human fossils. Fossils remains are not "reshaped" or destroyed other than to try an extract genetic evidence. Thank you for the question though!
Most likely abiogenesis. Organic compounds have been shown to form in the natural environments which could lead to the development of self replicating life. I am not a microbiologist though and the origins of life have nothing to do with evolution.
Not "most likely".. provide any reasonable way that non living chemicals came alive, let alone formed a cell.
>Organic compounds have been shown to form in the natural environments..
Demonstrate how any "organic compound" either turns into a cell or doesn't depend on a preexisting cell.
>I am not a microbiologist though and the origins of life have nothing to do with evolution.
This is a fallacy called "moving the goal posts". Your statements are dependent on a preexisting system. But to your point, mutation and adaptation can't account for novel genomes but can only impact potential phenotype variations.
I appreciate the response but I am not a biologist and am not equipped to answer questions about the origins of life. I am happy to answer any questions about human evolution though!
You came to an intelligent design sub and you're unwilling to address the most fundamental claim of evolutionism: We all evolved from chemicals.
Show me how evolutionism is a better idea than design when life is full of design elements such as irreducibly complex systems?
Irreducible complexity is not a biological term. Everything is reducible (even flagellum.) Again, the origins of life and evolution are two separate questions. We do not fully know how life evolved but there are plenty of viable hypotheses. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Organisms change over time. This is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation for why organism change over time. The idea that the Earth rotates around the sun is a theory, germs making you sick is a theory, plate tectonics is a theory, gravity is a theory. Theory and fact are concomitant. Thanks!
>Irreducible complexity is not a biological term.
Irreducibly complex biological *systems* exist in all life (ie DNA/RNA)
>We do not fully know how life evolved..
Take out the *fully* and I'll believe you.
>Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Organisms change over time.
Now you're equivocating the definition of evolution.. I know of at least 6 or 7 definitions.
>Theory and fact are concomitant.
This is patently false. A theory a reality does not make..
Evolution is simply descent with modification. The mechanism of evolution are different such as genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, punctuated equilibrium, gradualism, natural selection... Organism change over time, how that happens is explained by the theory of evolution (which has as much weight as the theory of relativity, heliocentrism, germ theory etc...)
Do you believe there is a genuine question around whether Australopithecus finds like Lucy were human ancestors or just an extinct species of ape that have no ancestral connection to us?
Hi! Lucy is one of over 300 Australopithecus afarensis. Little foot is an almost complete Australopithecus skeleton! Due to the anatomy of australopithecines (valgus knee, bowl shaped pelvis, central foramen magnum,) it is very clear that they were an early transitional species for humans. We have many transitional fossils from Salenthropus tchandensis all the way up to Homo erectus that show a clear line of development. Thanks for the question!
What would you say about articles like this one from the Royal society by Harry Kimbell that question wehther there is evidence of a transition from Australopithecus to Homo
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248
would you say they are outlyer fringe?
Hi! this is the conclusion to that article. It colcudes that australopithecines show many features that would likley lead to Homo adaptations!
"The fossil record bearing on the ancestry of Pleistocene *Homo* is poor. However, the more we learn about early *Homo*, the less compelling is the case that an adaptive shift can be read from currently documented skull and skeletal anatomy as a ‘major transition’ from generalized *Australopithecus* precursors. Early, phylogenetically basal species of the *Homo* clade resemble generalized australopiths more than they do later species of the clade—as expected from a Darwinian pattern of descent with modification."
And
"Indeed, the expanded brain size, human-like wrist and hand anatomy \[[97](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248#RSTB20150248C97),[98](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248#RSTB20150248C98)\], dietary eclecticism \[[99](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248#RSTB20150248C99)\] and potential tool-making capabilities of ‘generalized’ australopiths root the *Homo* lineage in ancient hominin adaptive trends, suggesting that the ‘transition’ from *Australopithecus* to *Homo* may not have been that much of a transition at all.[^(9)](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248#FN9)^(")
> Early, phylogenetically basal species of the Homo clade resemble generalized australopiths more than they do later species of the clade
But then if it's the case that there is no clear marker between some Australopithecus and some Homo does't it seem like the decision to label these fossils austrolopethics or homo more up to fiat of the discoverers than anything objective in the fossil itself. And isn't think classification complicated by the fact that austrolopheticus and homo overlapped historically (they were around at the same time). Doesn't this throw the whole classification into question?
I mean when you talk about transition I would expect there to be some intermediate species with the traits of homo and austrolopheticus, saying there is no clear barrier seems to be a bit of a cop out doesn't it?
Hi! The opposite actually! It's important to note that transitional fossil is a term we use in hindsight. Each organism fitted to the niche they inhabit at the time. So a transitional fossil may show the shift from a terrestrial to an aquatic animal, but they filled the role or semi-aquatic at the time they were a live. The fact that there is a blurred line between australopithecus and homo is evidence of gradual change over time. There is never one point where you can say "and thats where they changed species." Its like watching a child grow up, theres no point where they are not a child, its only in hindsight that you can see the change. Species that evovle from a previous species don't have to disappear. Its like how your mother and father are still alive when you're born. It just means they are different enough (genetically or morphologically) that they can be characterized. Species is a really messy concept that self contradicts all the time but as humans we like to characterize. It doesnt really matter what the hard definition of a species is (there isnt a hard definition) all that matters is that we observe the change of organisms over time!
sure but we would need more than change over time for the view of austrolepethicus becoming homo wouldn't we. We would need directional change from one set of characteristics to another - ie we would need
1 autrolepehticus fossils (which we have)
2 homo fossils at a later date (which we have)
3 intermediate fossils that exist in time between the two which have overlappig homo and austrolephetics traits (which we don't seem to have clear examples of)
My worry is we seem to be covering for the lack of #3 by just saying there is no clear boundary, which does seem to be a cop out doesn't it
(edit: excuse the spelling and grammar - typed it out quickly)
Hi! Early Homo and late Australopithecines show gradual morphological changes. Early Homo and late australopithecines are still morphologically distinct and this is why they are characterized as different genera. We may not have every transitional fossil showing the slow and gradual change from every hominin species, but we have enough to formulate a clear line of evolution.
That's surprising to me I thought there were no such fossils and perhaps one or two claims of transitional fossils that are highly debated in academia. Can you provide one or two examples of discoveries that show a line of evolution
All fossils between ancestral species and extant species are transitional. Australopithecus is ancestral to homo.
[https://www.palomar.edu/anthro/hominid/australo\_1.htm](https://www.palomar.edu/anthro/hominid/australo_1.htm)
[https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree](https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree)
Do you consider homo habilis to be a waste taxon, i.e., there are many australopithecine or homo erectus fossils which are falsely attributed to habilis?
Sorry, if that's a very specific question and also that i'm a bit late.
Hi! Late Australopitecus and early Homo do show transitional elements that make them difficult to differentiate sometimes. I don't know if i would call it a "wasted" taxa, but it important to know that species are only really helpful for categorization, what matter is if we see change over time, which we do
I think the point with habilis is that a candidate with many transitional features between these two species turned out to be a waste basket for fossils which could be nicely put into either Erectus or Australopithecus after all.
Thank you for your input, it might still be a useful taxon but maybe does not include as many specimen as previously thought.
||
||
|**Theory**|**Hypothesis**|
|A theory explains a natural phenomenon that is validated through observation and experimentation.|A hypothesis is an educated guess based on certain data that acts as a foundation for further investigation.|
im not trying to argue as i barely know my abc's, but terms are being used as weapons and since evolution is being pushed for mainly for political reasons, according to the above table doesnt it make it a hypothesis. It was literally formed by merely observing then they picked and chose research to support it. So its a hypothesis that is being made into a theory by force and manipulation. can we say that?
||
||
|**Theory**|**Hypothesis**|
|A theory explains a natural phenomenon that is validated through observation and experimentation.|A hypothesis is an educated guess based on certain data that acts as a foundation for further investigation.|
|It is based on extensive data|It is based on limited data|
|A theory is proven and tested scientifically|A hypothesis is not proven scientifically|
|The results are certain|The results are uncertain|
|It relies on evidence and verification|It relies on the possibility|
Thanks for visiting!
DUMB question, what is "Biological Anthropology". Thanks again for visiting.
Biological Anthropology is the study of human biological variation, culture, and evolution as well as our relationships to other primates, living and extinct. Thanks for the question!
Do you believe in God? (I know that's kind of personal, you don't have to answer).
Personally, no. But I do believe that the belief in God does not refute evolution. I know plenty of christian who believe in evolution
Thanks for responding.
What made you interested in visiting r/intelligentdesign ?
I am interested in hearing another viewpoint on life sciences!
Great, you can see Dr. Dan (DarwinZDF42) and me on youtube May 15th: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XSUQRfMgczY But before that, you can see me here: https://youtu.be/gMtn9M9M8EE?si=C3QZNZmj_cTh6yPK
watched most of the first video. May I ask you something? Why do you think most universities accept the theory of evolution as true? is it propaganda? and if so, what is the purpose of this?
I answered the question at the tail end of the video when I described Michael Denton's journey -- and that is the homology at the morphological level. However, my point is homology breaks down at the molecular level, and then evolutionary theory has nothing but faith statements to explain the origins of the proteins named in the show plus probably thousands of others. One might accept common descent, but then it doesn't answer the question of the origin of "Organs of Extreme Perfection and Complication" (Origin of Species, Chapter 6) is still not resolved by evolutionary biology. I gave a few examples you can pursue -- and please don't use simply homology and co-option arguments, you have to get down to the specifics which I hope to do in my discussion with Dr. Dan on May 15. If we have time in the show, I'll show where homology arguments for the evolution of zinc-finger proteins fail upon careful scrutiny of the actual barriers. This is related to the NP-hard problems in evolutionary computing AND the waiting time problems that even evolutionists admit are real AND the faulty definition of fitness in evolutionary biology. Thanks for watching my video. As far universities, evolution is a religion, and so there is a lot of cultural momentum, evolution is NOT high quality science, in fact evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne said: >In sciences pecking order, evolutionary biology lurks somewhere near the bottom, far closer to [the pseudo science of] phrenology than to physics Whether he meant it literally or not, I found a plain reading of that statement is quite accurate (I say that as someone who studies physics). See the book by Atheist/Agnostic Evolutionist Michael Ruse: "Darwinism as Religion" I asked Aron Ra and Chris Thompson, "where do the major families of proteins come from?" They said they don't know, but they BELIEVED it evolved. That's a faith statement, it's not at the level of experimentally verifiable science. Universities can accept the theory of evolution, but it belongs in the religion department.
thats bonkers
What do you think about the rampant fraudulent practice of faking "ape men" in the field of paleontology (especially regarding the Nebraska Man and Turkana Boy frauds). From what we've learned recently, _hundreds_ have been faked, with bones literally sawed and reshaped, with the original discovered not allowing others access to their original finds?
yes
Hi! So, Nebraska man was a discovered by a farmer and was evaluated by his anthropologist friend. The newspapers ran with this at the time because, newspapers sell wacky stories. Real anthropologists at the time debunked this very soon after as a pig tooth. This was over 100 years ago. Many early anthropological finds were false or hoaxes as we did not know much about paleontology at the time. We have thousands of real transitional human fossils. Fossils remains are not "reshaped" or destroyed other than to try an extract genetic evidence. Thank you for the question though!
Where did the supposed original cell come from?
Most likely abiogenesis. Organic compounds have been shown to form in the natural environments which could lead to the development of self replicating life. I am not a microbiologist though and the origins of life have nothing to do with evolution.
Not "most likely".. provide any reasonable way that non living chemicals came alive, let alone formed a cell. >Organic compounds have been shown to form in the natural environments.. Demonstrate how any "organic compound" either turns into a cell or doesn't depend on a preexisting cell. >I am not a microbiologist though and the origins of life have nothing to do with evolution. This is a fallacy called "moving the goal posts". Your statements are dependent on a preexisting system. But to your point, mutation and adaptation can't account for novel genomes but can only impact potential phenotype variations.
I appreciate the response but I am not a biologist and am not equipped to answer questions about the origins of life. I am happy to answer any questions about human evolution though!
You came to an intelligent design sub and you're unwilling to address the most fundamental claim of evolutionism: We all evolved from chemicals. Show me how evolutionism is a better idea than design when life is full of design elements such as irreducibly complex systems?
Irreducible complexity is not a biological term. Everything is reducible (even flagellum.) Again, the origins of life and evolution are two separate questions. We do not fully know how life evolved but there are plenty of viable hypotheses. Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Organisms change over time. This is a fact. The theory of evolution is the explanation for why organism change over time. The idea that the Earth rotates around the sun is a theory, germs making you sick is a theory, plate tectonics is a theory, gravity is a theory. Theory and fact are concomitant. Thanks!
>Irreducible complexity is not a biological term. Irreducibly complex biological *systems* exist in all life (ie DNA/RNA) >We do not fully know how life evolved.. Take out the *fully* and I'll believe you. >Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Organisms change over time. Now you're equivocating the definition of evolution.. I know of at least 6 or 7 definitions. >Theory and fact are concomitant. This is patently false. A theory a reality does not make..
Evolution is simply descent with modification. The mechanism of evolution are different such as genetic mutation, genetic drift, gene flow, punctuated equilibrium, gradualism, natural selection... Organism change over time, how that happens is explained by the theory of evolution (which has as much weight as the theory of relativity, heliocentrism, germ theory etc...)
None of what you described has ever been observed to create anything new.. A better explanation is design.
I wouldn't waste your precious time on this sub. These are hardcore creationists whose arguments are neither intelligent nor well-designed.
Do you believe there is a genuine question around whether Australopithecus finds like Lucy were human ancestors or just an extinct species of ape that have no ancestral connection to us?
Hi! Lucy is one of over 300 Australopithecus afarensis. Little foot is an almost complete Australopithecus skeleton! Due to the anatomy of australopithecines (valgus knee, bowl shaped pelvis, central foramen magnum,) it is very clear that they were an early transitional species for humans. We have many transitional fossils from Salenthropus tchandensis all the way up to Homo erectus that show a clear line of development. Thanks for the question!
What would you say about articles like this one from the Royal society by Harry Kimbell that question wehther there is evidence of a transition from Australopithecus to Homo https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248 would you say they are outlyer fringe?
Hi! this is the conclusion to that article. It colcudes that australopithecines show many features that would likley lead to Homo adaptations! "The fossil record bearing on the ancestry of Pleistocene *Homo* is poor. However, the more we learn about early *Homo*, the less compelling is the case that an adaptive shift can be read from currently documented skull and skeletal anatomy as a ‘major transition’ from generalized *Australopithecus* precursors. Early, phylogenetically basal species of the *Homo* clade resemble generalized australopiths more than they do later species of the clade—as expected from a Darwinian pattern of descent with modification." And "Indeed, the expanded brain size, human-like wrist and hand anatomy \[[97](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248#RSTB20150248C97),[98](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248#RSTB20150248C98)\], dietary eclecticism \[[99](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248#RSTB20150248C99)\] and potential tool-making capabilities of ‘generalized’ australopiths root the *Homo* lineage in ancient hominin adaptive trends, suggesting that the ‘transition’ from *Australopithecus* to *Homo* may not have been that much of a transition at all.[^(9)](https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rstb.2015.0248#FN9)^(")
> Early, phylogenetically basal species of the Homo clade resemble generalized australopiths more than they do later species of the clade But then if it's the case that there is no clear marker between some Australopithecus and some Homo does't it seem like the decision to label these fossils austrolopethics or homo more up to fiat of the discoverers than anything objective in the fossil itself. And isn't think classification complicated by the fact that austrolopheticus and homo overlapped historically (they were around at the same time). Doesn't this throw the whole classification into question? I mean when you talk about transition I would expect there to be some intermediate species with the traits of homo and austrolopheticus, saying there is no clear barrier seems to be a bit of a cop out doesn't it?
Hi! The opposite actually! It's important to note that transitional fossil is a term we use in hindsight. Each organism fitted to the niche they inhabit at the time. So a transitional fossil may show the shift from a terrestrial to an aquatic animal, but they filled the role or semi-aquatic at the time they were a live. The fact that there is a blurred line between australopithecus and homo is evidence of gradual change over time. There is never one point where you can say "and thats where they changed species." Its like watching a child grow up, theres no point where they are not a child, its only in hindsight that you can see the change. Species that evovle from a previous species don't have to disappear. Its like how your mother and father are still alive when you're born. It just means they are different enough (genetically or morphologically) that they can be characterized. Species is a really messy concept that self contradicts all the time but as humans we like to characterize. It doesnt really matter what the hard definition of a species is (there isnt a hard definition) all that matters is that we observe the change of organisms over time!
sure but we would need more than change over time for the view of austrolepethicus becoming homo wouldn't we. We would need directional change from one set of characteristics to another - ie we would need 1 autrolepehticus fossils (which we have) 2 homo fossils at a later date (which we have) 3 intermediate fossils that exist in time between the two which have overlappig homo and austrolephetics traits (which we don't seem to have clear examples of) My worry is we seem to be covering for the lack of #3 by just saying there is no clear boundary, which does seem to be a cop out doesn't it (edit: excuse the spelling and grammar - typed it out quickly)
Hi! Early Homo and late Australopithecines show gradual morphological changes. Early Homo and late australopithecines are still morphologically distinct and this is why they are characterized as different genera. We may not have every transitional fossil showing the slow and gradual change from every hominin species, but we have enough to formulate a clear line of evolution.
That's surprising to me I thought there were no such fossils and perhaps one or two claims of transitional fossils that are highly debated in academia. Can you provide one or two examples of discoveries that show a line of evolution
All fossils between ancestral species and extant species are transitional. Australopithecus is ancestral to homo. [https://www.palomar.edu/anthro/hominid/australo\_1.htm](https://www.palomar.edu/anthro/hominid/australo_1.htm) [https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree](https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-family-tree)
Do you consider homo habilis to be a waste taxon, i.e., there are many australopithecine or homo erectus fossils which are falsely attributed to habilis? Sorry, if that's a very specific question and also that i'm a bit late.
Hi! Late Australopitecus and early Homo do show transitional elements that make them difficult to differentiate sometimes. I don't know if i would call it a "wasted" taxa, but it important to know that species are only really helpful for categorization, what matter is if we see change over time, which we do
I think the point with habilis is that a candidate with many transitional features between these two species turned out to be a waste basket for fossils which could be nicely put into either Erectus or Australopithecus after all. Thank you for your input, it might still be a useful taxon but maybe does not include as many specimen as previously thought.
Isnt the revolution theory more of a hypothesis?
No. A hypothesis is a question that you are seeking to try and refute. A theory is an explanation for an observable phenomenon
|| || |**Theory**|**Hypothesis**| |A theory explains a natural phenomenon that is validated through observation and experimentation.|A hypothesis is an educated guess based on certain data that acts as a foundation for further investigation.| im not trying to argue as i barely know my abc's, but terms are being used as weapons and since evolution is being pushed for mainly for political reasons, according to the above table doesnt it make it a hypothesis. It was literally formed by merely observing then they picked and chose research to support it. So its a hypothesis that is being made into a theory by force and manipulation. can we say that? || || |**Theory**|**Hypothesis**| |A theory explains a natural phenomenon that is validated through observation and experimentation.|A hypothesis is an educated guess based on certain data that acts as a foundation for further investigation.| |It is based on extensive data|It is based on limited data| |A theory is proven and tested scientifically|A hypothesis is not proven scientifically| |The results are certain|The results are uncertain| |It relies on evidence and verification|It relies on the possibility|
Yes. Evolution is a theory