Donald Johanson—the discoverer of Lucy’s kind, Australopithecus afarensis—has argued for decades that A. afarensis is our ancestor. However, most people are unaware that prominent members of the paleo-community reject afarensis as a valid species. These scientists have argued persuasively in favour of afarensis as a jumble of human (Homo) and ape-like (Australopithecus) bones. Ironically, this is precisely what Johanson had originally reported in his 1976 Nature paper, prior to his controversial ‘reassessment’ when he completely changed his story and presented Lucy’s kind as the ancestor to all ‘later’ hominins.
James Tour is one of the greatest chemist alive on the planet today. Possibly the number one. Listen to what he says. Then ask yourself this: if we, with all the knowledge we have, are utterly unable to assemble the most basic life form, how on earth are we to believe that they came together by chance? It is utter foolishness.
This is a very interesting interview. I mean, there are some terrible philosophical and theological counterarguments in there, but in terms of why Darwinism is a failure and why Intelligent Design must not be dismissed as religion cloaked in science, it’s very interesting. David Gelernter is a notable computer scientist at Yale and has now officially renounced Darwinism. He also describes how Darwinism is no longer about science alone, but has become the foundation of a worldview, thus a religion in itself, so much so that it cannot be critiqued scientifically in the open without getting attacked for it.
That said, it is very clear how the ID movement alone can only take someone so far. Galernter has given up Darwinism, but is still lost in a non biblical worldview that cannot take him to eternal life found in Jesus Christ.
As it happens, not long ago I was yet again in a conversation about diary products, lactose intolerance, and evolution. It is very popular these days to repeat the mantra “cow’s milk is for cows, not for humans”. More and more people are buying into these “veganistic” idea that we were never meant to drink milk, but we “forced ourselves into evolving in drinking it, but it hasn’t worked very well, and that’s why it’s harmful for us”.
When I hear stuff like that, I shake my head, and think “would they believe they if they started ingesting mercury, they would eventually evolve to be able to live off mercury rather than just dying for its poisonous characteristics”?
That said, one colleague made the acute objection that the cows we drink the milk of are those we selectively bred for the very reason they produced milk we could drink. Of course, he also made the blind-faith leap that “this is how evolution works” (no, it isn’t — in fact, human aided selective breading only goes to show that evolution could never work unaidedly; plus, selective adaptation manipulates existing information, but never adds new information).
This is a classic example of how people are brainwashed into believing macro-evolution is true. Whether intentional or just out of ignorance, that’s a different matter. What’s happening in this article is selection: the cockroaches that already had the ability to resist expressed in their genome survive and pass it on to the next generation. Hence we end up with only cockroaches that have that ability expressed. However, the ability wasn’t “evolved”, meaning it did not “appear out of nowhere”. It was in the genome already. It’s only proven advantageous in a particular setting, so to favour the survival of those that had it expressed. The cockroaches are still cockroaches and such they will remain.