Muddling Through Another Rewrite of Human Evolution - Part 1

Believers in universal common ancestor evolution have contrived a number of stories to convince the world (and themselves) that we evolved through trial and error, vast amounts of time, survival of the fittest. Our putative ancestors were critters that looked a great deal like monkeys and apes. However, their stories have many problems, so they are constantly changing.

Background image: The Passion of Creation, Leonid Pasternak, 1880s

Public indoctrination centers (commonly known as schools, but more accurately as branches of the Ministry of Truth) do a good job in presenting varnished tales of tails and origins, but they do not seem to teach students how to think critically. Instead, they lasso the evoporn and believe it, even when facts disputed or rejected by evolutionists. Somehow this gives them license to ridicule, as if such actions prove that they are right; note that logic doesn't seem to be stressed by the evolutionary Ministry of Truth, either, and Darwin's Flying Monkeys™ gibber at biblical creationists with bad information while thinking that we are the uninformed ones.

Mocking a "meme" and ignoring the accompanying content
Image used under Fair Use provisions for educational purposes
EDIT: After I linked to this post in a comment on that Page, the owner hid it from public view.

One of the main concepts is Out of Africa. This is evosplained as hominids evolved down Africa way, then humans emerged and took off to settle down in assorted places on the earth. Problems with this idea were found, but the narrative was more important than the facts — a common problem with the evolutionists. Emphasizing naturalism and utilizing a passel of logical fallacies, fake science continues. Evolutionary history is rewritten again and again. They wouldn't have these problems if they were intellectually honest enough to admit that their epistemology is fundamentally flawed.

You may be thinking that we have two articles today. Actually, it's three, and two more tomorrow. Let's saddle up!

“New fossils, tools and analyses of genomes have thrown everything in disarray,” announced author Graham Lawton in the cover story in the latest issue of the British science magazine New Scientist. Once again, the latest rewrite of human evolution announces that we should forget all we once knew, because a “huge array of fossils and genome studies has completely rewritten the story of how we came into being,” yet again. It’s about the fourth time this has happened in the past year or so, I might add. Why does this keep happening? The story of human evolution is, as Mark Twain said a century ago, based on a few bone fragments and several buckets of plaster.

Having just completed the most detailed book-length review ever done by objective PhD outsiders of the peer-reviewed evidence for human evolution with my colleagues, I can say with confidence that Mark Twain’s sentiment over a century ago was correct. I could add the theory of human evolution is now based on more than a few bone fragments, but it is also based on even more just-so stories, as well as requiring a lot more faith than Mark Twain had.

To read the rest of this first article, click on "The Latest Rewriting of Human Evolution". The next article, below, reinforces this first one.

Evolutionary biologists, anthropologists, and paleontologists get their hands on a few bones and use them to spin a yarn. (Sometimes the hands at the Darwin Ranch have someone squat down behind a big cardboard box and use bones to tell a weird puppet show.) They use circular reasoning and even contradict themselves in their efforts do deny the truth that we were created, not evolved.

When you try to force fossils and artifacts into an evolutionary timeline, the anomalies outnumber the confirmations.

In recent news about early humans, statements often express surprise and falsification of earlier notions. Humans at all stages of Homo traveled farther and showed intelligence greater than expected for upwardly-mobile apes.

You can finish reading this article by clicking on "Early Man Science Is a Confused Muddle". The last article for today expands on the Out of Africa model.

Using tendentious deep-time dating methods, evolutionists are unable to come up with a coherent timeline to make the OoAM work. Instead, they rustle up some rescuing devices that are ineffective because they are still contradicted by observed evidence and their own established dates. Their stories are simply comfortable speculations and not based on actual evidence.

Most visitors to the American Museum of Natural History look in awe at the allegedly pre-human ‘apemen’ (a.k.a. ‘hominins’ or ‘hominids’), including those in the ‘Our Family Tree’ display (fig. 1). Using skull casts, it illustrates the claimed evolutionary relationship between them—clearly meant as a kind of knockout punch to anyone still daring to doubt that man is no more than a highly-evolved ape.
. . .
Interpretations and ‘dates’ of fossil skulls are in turmoil, too; notions once proclaimed as near-certain are often later discarded. Others keep accumulating difficulties and are repeatedly ‘patched up’, seemingly awaiting the time when alternative ideas will permit their abandonment. This includes the leading ‘African’ model of human evolution.

To read the full article (which includes some serious problems for arch-compromiser Hugh Ross) and conclude today's series, click on "‘Out of Africa’ on the ropes — The favoured story of evolution is now struggling". Don't forget to see "Muddling Through Another Rewrite of Human Evolution - Part 2".