jaffarabduraheem
Not afraid of you.
What follows is a report I did on evolution (or the lack thereof) for school. I though you all may find it interesting.
Human Evolution
By: Jaffar Abduraheem Ousley
The topic I chose to study for this project is human evolution. The subject of evolution as a general field of study, and human evolution specifically, can (and has) filled dozens of books. There are scientists who devote their entire careers to answering questions asked by our very anatomy. Where did humanity come from? Who are our human ancestors? What do our ancestors tell us about ourselves? Human evolution is the official version of human origination as taught in secular schools and many homes, but what proof do we have that the theory of human evolution is a valid theory at all? This is the question I will attempt to answer in this report. I hypothesize that the theory of human evolution is actually pseudoscience. If my hypothesis is correct then it will be shown that some alternative to the theory of evolution should be sought as following pseudoscience leads to little useful information.
If we first examine the criteria for a hypothesis to be established as a scientific theory, then it will be shown that a theory consists of a series of well tested hypotheses about the natural world. A hypothesis can be defined as an educated guess. It follows therefore, that to discern whether the theory of human evolution can correctly be defined as a theory or must be relegated to the position of hypothetical pseudoscience, it must be proven that there is too little actual evidence supporting evolution for it to be an established theory.
To gain a clear understanding of the topic of evolution, we shall briefly examine the evidences for and against the basic process of evolution, natural selection and mutation.
Natural selection is the primary process by which evolution is precipitated. An animal that possesses certain attributes is more likely to survive in certain environments than another animal that lack a similar attribute. It can be said for instance that a prehistoric species of man who had flat teeth for eating plants and sharp teeth for eating meat could outlast another species of man who had only sharp teeth for eating meat in the absence of game to hunt. Therefore the species who lasted will survive and their teeth will possibly evolve to be sharper (for better meat eating) and flatter (for better plant eating) while the other species will become extinct. The problem with this theory is lies in the fact that since it actually only describes what happens in the absence of other species (the surviving species fills the gap left by their now extinct cousins) it does not account for any actual change. Since the theory of evolution is based on the idea of change there must be put forth a method to first precipitate change.
Mutation is the method that actually brings about the change necessary for natural selection to begin its process. Mutation is recognized as either breaks or replacements of nucleotides in a strand of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is known to be quite complex itself and it seems illogical to hypothesize that a random change in something as ordered as DNA would yield any beneficial result. Evolutionary scientist Warren Weaver notes in response to a report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, “Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?”
The idea that something complex cannot be changed (added to, subtracted from, or otherwise altered) and yield results that are beneficial is not a new idea. It was even written about by Charles Darwin himself in his book, “The Origin of Species.” This idea is now known as irreducible complexity. The idea of irreducible complexity is often cited as a problematic component of the theory of evolution. Irreducible complexity seems to eliminate the possibility of evolution by causing such an insurmountable obstacle to overcome that it becomes irrational to discount it. Irreducible complexity is the idea that for something to have evolved into the form it is now, it must have at some time been less advanced. However, for many of our organs to work correctly and support life (kidneys or a liver for example) or aid in the proper level of survivability to make the next round in natural selection (eyes or teeth for example), all parts have to be perfectly in place and working properly. Another component to the idea of irreducible complexity lies in the fact that if a system works well enough to have its host survive, then it is good enough and does not need to change.
In researching my topic I attempted to find resources that contained as little circumstantial evidence as possible. Knowing circumstantial evidence to be of little use in proving the validity of a theory or hypothesis, I looked for only sources that offered empirical scientific evidence for or against the theory of human evolution. What I found in my research is that there is in fact shockingly little evidence available to support the theory of evolution while there remains a profusion of empirical data to controvert it.
Karl D. Fezer calls the claim of the lack of scientific evidence outrageous in his article, “Dramatic confirmation: Genome projects reveal evolution in human DNA (May 23, 2008)” in The Charleston Gazette and goes on to substantiate his statement with genetic evidence that proves that modern human DNA and modern chimpanzee DNA are similar, a fact which was never in question. What is never actually touched upon is whether humans could be said to have evolved from chimpanzees or if humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, which would have been useful information in an article about human evolution.
The closest proof of the general theory of evolution was the study of Industrial Melanism. In the 1950s British physicist Bernard Kittlewell conducted a study of moths that rested on the trees near Manchester, England. Mr. Kittlewell concluded that due to the air pollution caused by the industrial revolution, lichens that made the trees light in color had died making the trees darker. This caused the light colored moths--now more visible--to be eaten by predators more often. In the absence of the lighter moths, Mr. Kittlewell concluded that the lighter moths had been deselected by natural selection and were being systematically evolved into the darker moths.
To consider this famous study objectively we immediately notice the glaring circumstantial nature of the research. While it could very well be that the light colored moths are evolving into darker moths, no new species was actually created. The darker moths—already extant—clearly seem to be filling a gap left by the now missing light colored moths. Aside from the flawed logic of the research of Mr. Kittlewell it was also concluded independently in the late 1990s that many of the photographs taken by Kittlewell and many of his observations contained manufactured information. Many of the moths in his photographs were shown to have been either pinned or glued to trees as the tree trunk was not their normal resting place.
In the interest of thorough research, I attempted to discover and recreate the accepted evolutionary path that was taken by the earliest known man to what we have become today. A logical assumption is that since evolution is seemingly well defined enough to have earned the moniker of “theory,” one should be reasonably able to trace a path from past to present. I found that the consensus agrees that the dawn of man rests in the Middle Miocene Epoch to the Late Miocene Epoch, a period spanning from 16.4 million to 5.3 million years ago. It is shown that in this period a few different human-like species became prominent in the Africa (in the Middle Miocene Epoch) and Eurasia (in the Late Miocene Epoch). The question that is immediately discovered to go unaddressed with our facts is how Homo sapiens (modern man)—known to be a single species—can have evolved on two different continents at two different times. We can hypothesize that the divergent species of early man intermixed to form the single ancestor to man, however it is apparent that due to lack of evidence linking the species of either continent to modern man we simply cannot be sure of the location of the original man.
Hypothetically, we can put forth that the different species of early ape present during the Middle to Late Miocene Period have either all become extinct or evolved into either modern man or our contemporary ape “cousins.” Those that are of the opinion that human evolution began in Eurasia (Late Miocene Epoch) postulate that the earliest ancestor to man can be shown to be Graecopithecus. The evolutionary tree that begins with Graecopithecus is said to contain Australopithecus Africanus as well as subsequent species of Australopithecus.
Some curious facts about A. Africanus are: (1) while Graecopithecus apparently lived near what is modern day
Turkey, A. Africanus was discovered to have lived in South Africa (the name means, “southern ape of Africa”). And (2) A. Africanus is assigned an approximate geologic date due to the only available dating method being biostratigraphy. From simply these two facts it seems that we may logically conclude that there is not enough information extant on A. Africanus to plausibly assume its placement in the human family.
The opinion that evolution began in Africa lends a more likely candidate to a precursor to the various species of Australopithecus with Samburupithecus. While it seems that Samburupithecus and Australopithecus at least resided on the same continent, the credibility of any ideas regarding Samburupithecus is immediately damaged when we note that the idea of this entire species is based upon a single jawbone that was discovered in Kenya.
As our research continues it becomes clearer that there is too little evidence of the theory of evolution to suppose that man or any other creature has evolved. And in fact we have discovered that there is an abundance of evidence to dispel the theory of evolution. Regardless of the proof or lack thereof for against evolution, this will probably continue to be a hotly argued about field of study. There are many motives for what people choose to accept about the theory of evolution that prevent them from seeing or accepting what comes to the objective observer as clear fact and this is true of those on either side of the debate.
Admittedly, I took on the task of finding and recording this information with vague preconceived ideas about this topic. I wondered at how or why evolution could be so widely accepted and still have such vocal and abundant opposition. The answer I speculate is that evolution is accepted due to equal parts lack of better evidence for another explanation and unwillingness to concede ignorance. I definitely feel that if evolutionary biology is to progress to a point where actual evidence is put forth as to human origin, then the theory of evolution must be suspended and relegated to slightly humorous memories of what we used to believe like the idea of a flat Earth.
After three weeks of research and many hours of reading reports filled with much rhetoric either for or against the theory of human evolution, I feel that I have here compiled a sufficient amount of information to conclude that the theory of human evolution is indeed pseudoscience. It must be noted that this in no way actually disproves the existence of evolution or a human evolutionary pathway. It does however prove that we do not possess enough knowledge concerning this topic to ignore other possibilities.
Citations:
*Bower, B. (2008, May 24). Jaw breaker. Science News, 173(17), 7-7. Retrieved July 4, 2008, from Academic Search Elite database.
*Karl D. Fezer (2008, May 23). Dramatic confirmation: Genome projects reveal evolution in human DNA. The Charleston Gazette, A.5. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from ProQuest Newsstand database. (Document ID: 1483842921).
Yahya, Harun. (1999). Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution. The Evolution Deceit (8th ed., pp. 50-57). Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from www.evolutiondeceit.com.
Yahya, Harun. (2002). Evolution and Thermodynamics. Barham, James (Ed.), Darwinism Refuted: How the Theory of Evolution Breaks down in the Light of Modern Science (pp. 294-298). Goodword Books. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from www.darwinismrefuted.com.
Australopithecus. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-250022.
Harrison, Terry. (2008). Fossil Apes. Retrieved July 26, 2008, from http://www.accessscience.com.
Homo sapiens. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9040899.
evolution. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica online.Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9106075 .
heredity. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica online.Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-262020.
human evolution. Encyclopædia Britannica online. (2008). Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9117282.
Human Evolution
By: Jaffar Abduraheem Ousley
The topic I chose to study for this project is human evolution. The subject of evolution as a general field of study, and human evolution specifically, can (and has) filled dozens of books. There are scientists who devote their entire careers to answering questions asked by our very anatomy. Where did humanity come from? Who are our human ancestors? What do our ancestors tell us about ourselves? Human evolution is the official version of human origination as taught in secular schools and many homes, but what proof do we have that the theory of human evolution is a valid theory at all? This is the question I will attempt to answer in this report. I hypothesize that the theory of human evolution is actually pseudoscience. If my hypothesis is correct then it will be shown that some alternative to the theory of evolution should be sought as following pseudoscience leads to little useful information.
If we first examine the criteria for a hypothesis to be established as a scientific theory, then it will be shown that a theory consists of a series of well tested hypotheses about the natural world. A hypothesis can be defined as an educated guess. It follows therefore, that to discern whether the theory of human evolution can correctly be defined as a theory or must be relegated to the position of hypothetical pseudoscience, it must be proven that there is too little actual evidence supporting evolution for it to be an established theory.
To gain a clear understanding of the topic of evolution, we shall briefly examine the evidences for and against the basic process of evolution, natural selection and mutation.
Natural selection is the primary process by which evolution is precipitated. An animal that possesses certain attributes is more likely to survive in certain environments than another animal that lack a similar attribute. It can be said for instance that a prehistoric species of man who had flat teeth for eating plants and sharp teeth for eating meat could outlast another species of man who had only sharp teeth for eating meat in the absence of game to hunt. Therefore the species who lasted will survive and their teeth will possibly evolve to be sharper (for better meat eating) and flatter (for better plant eating) while the other species will become extinct. The problem with this theory is lies in the fact that since it actually only describes what happens in the absence of other species (the surviving species fills the gap left by their now extinct cousins) it does not account for any actual change. Since the theory of evolution is based on the idea of change there must be put forth a method to first precipitate change.
Mutation is the method that actually brings about the change necessary for natural selection to begin its process. Mutation is recognized as either breaks or replacements of nucleotides in a strand of DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid). DNA is known to be quite complex itself and it seems illogical to hypothesize that a random change in something as ordered as DNA would yield any beneficial result. Evolutionary scientist Warren Weaver notes in response to a report prepared by the Committee on Genetic Effects of Atomic Radiation, “Many will be puzzled about the statement that practically all known mutant genes are harmful. For mutations are a necessary part of the process of evolution. How can a good effect - evolution to higher forms of life - results from mutations practically all of which are harmful?”
The idea that something complex cannot be changed (added to, subtracted from, or otherwise altered) and yield results that are beneficial is not a new idea. It was even written about by Charles Darwin himself in his book, “The Origin of Species.” This idea is now known as irreducible complexity. The idea of irreducible complexity is often cited as a problematic component of the theory of evolution. Irreducible complexity seems to eliminate the possibility of evolution by causing such an insurmountable obstacle to overcome that it becomes irrational to discount it. Irreducible complexity is the idea that for something to have evolved into the form it is now, it must have at some time been less advanced. However, for many of our organs to work correctly and support life (kidneys or a liver for example) or aid in the proper level of survivability to make the next round in natural selection (eyes or teeth for example), all parts have to be perfectly in place and working properly. Another component to the idea of irreducible complexity lies in the fact that if a system works well enough to have its host survive, then it is good enough and does not need to change.
In researching my topic I attempted to find resources that contained as little circumstantial evidence as possible. Knowing circumstantial evidence to be of little use in proving the validity of a theory or hypothesis, I looked for only sources that offered empirical scientific evidence for or against the theory of human evolution. What I found in my research is that there is in fact shockingly little evidence available to support the theory of evolution while there remains a profusion of empirical data to controvert it.
Karl D. Fezer calls the claim of the lack of scientific evidence outrageous in his article, “Dramatic confirmation: Genome projects reveal evolution in human DNA (May 23, 2008)” in The Charleston Gazette and goes on to substantiate his statement with genetic evidence that proves that modern human DNA and modern chimpanzee DNA are similar, a fact which was never in question. What is never actually touched upon is whether humans could be said to have evolved from chimpanzees or if humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, which would have been useful information in an article about human evolution.
The closest proof of the general theory of evolution was the study of Industrial Melanism. In the 1950s British physicist Bernard Kittlewell conducted a study of moths that rested on the trees near Manchester, England. Mr. Kittlewell concluded that due to the air pollution caused by the industrial revolution, lichens that made the trees light in color had died making the trees darker. This caused the light colored moths--now more visible--to be eaten by predators more often. In the absence of the lighter moths, Mr. Kittlewell concluded that the lighter moths had been deselected by natural selection and were being systematically evolved into the darker moths.
To consider this famous study objectively we immediately notice the glaring circumstantial nature of the research. While it could very well be that the light colored moths are evolving into darker moths, no new species was actually created. The darker moths—already extant—clearly seem to be filling a gap left by the now missing light colored moths. Aside from the flawed logic of the research of Mr. Kittlewell it was also concluded independently in the late 1990s that many of the photographs taken by Kittlewell and many of his observations contained manufactured information. Many of the moths in his photographs were shown to have been either pinned or glued to trees as the tree trunk was not their normal resting place.
In the interest of thorough research, I attempted to discover and recreate the accepted evolutionary path that was taken by the earliest known man to what we have become today. A logical assumption is that since evolution is seemingly well defined enough to have earned the moniker of “theory,” one should be reasonably able to trace a path from past to present. I found that the consensus agrees that the dawn of man rests in the Middle Miocene Epoch to the Late Miocene Epoch, a period spanning from 16.4 million to 5.3 million years ago. It is shown that in this period a few different human-like species became prominent in the Africa (in the Middle Miocene Epoch) and Eurasia (in the Late Miocene Epoch). The question that is immediately discovered to go unaddressed with our facts is how Homo sapiens (modern man)—known to be a single species—can have evolved on two different continents at two different times. We can hypothesize that the divergent species of early man intermixed to form the single ancestor to man, however it is apparent that due to lack of evidence linking the species of either continent to modern man we simply cannot be sure of the location of the original man.
Hypothetically, we can put forth that the different species of early ape present during the Middle to Late Miocene Period have either all become extinct or evolved into either modern man or our contemporary ape “cousins.” Those that are of the opinion that human evolution began in Eurasia (Late Miocene Epoch) postulate that the earliest ancestor to man can be shown to be Graecopithecus. The evolutionary tree that begins with Graecopithecus is said to contain Australopithecus Africanus as well as subsequent species of Australopithecus.
Some curious facts about A. Africanus are: (1) while Graecopithecus apparently lived near what is modern day
Turkey, A. Africanus was discovered to have lived in South Africa (the name means, “southern ape of Africa”). And (2) A. Africanus is assigned an approximate geologic date due to the only available dating method being biostratigraphy. From simply these two facts it seems that we may logically conclude that there is not enough information extant on A. Africanus to plausibly assume its placement in the human family.
The opinion that evolution began in Africa lends a more likely candidate to a precursor to the various species of Australopithecus with Samburupithecus. While it seems that Samburupithecus and Australopithecus at least resided on the same continent, the credibility of any ideas regarding Samburupithecus is immediately damaged when we note that the idea of this entire species is based upon a single jawbone that was discovered in Kenya.
As our research continues it becomes clearer that there is too little evidence of the theory of evolution to suppose that man or any other creature has evolved. And in fact we have discovered that there is an abundance of evidence to dispel the theory of evolution. Regardless of the proof or lack thereof for against evolution, this will probably continue to be a hotly argued about field of study. There are many motives for what people choose to accept about the theory of evolution that prevent them from seeing or accepting what comes to the objective observer as clear fact and this is true of those on either side of the debate.
Admittedly, I took on the task of finding and recording this information with vague preconceived ideas about this topic. I wondered at how or why evolution could be so widely accepted and still have such vocal and abundant opposition. The answer I speculate is that evolution is accepted due to equal parts lack of better evidence for another explanation and unwillingness to concede ignorance. I definitely feel that if evolutionary biology is to progress to a point where actual evidence is put forth as to human origin, then the theory of evolution must be suspended and relegated to slightly humorous memories of what we used to believe like the idea of a flat Earth.
After three weeks of research and many hours of reading reports filled with much rhetoric either for or against the theory of human evolution, I feel that I have here compiled a sufficient amount of information to conclude that the theory of human evolution is indeed pseudoscience. It must be noted that this in no way actually disproves the existence of evolution or a human evolutionary pathway. It does however prove that we do not possess enough knowledge concerning this topic to ignore other possibilities.
Citations:
*Bower, B. (2008, May 24). Jaw breaker. Science News, 173(17), 7-7. Retrieved July 4, 2008, from Academic Search Elite database.
*Karl D. Fezer (2008, May 23). Dramatic confirmation: Genome projects reveal evolution in human DNA. The Charleston Gazette, A.5. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from ProQuest Newsstand database. (Document ID: 1483842921).
Yahya, Harun. (1999). Imaginary Mechanisms of Evolution. The Evolution Deceit (8th ed., pp. 50-57). Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from www.evolutiondeceit.com.
Yahya, Harun. (2002). Evolution and Thermodynamics. Barham, James (Ed.), Darwinism Refuted: How the Theory of Evolution Breaks down in the Light of Modern Science (pp. 294-298). Goodword Books. Retrieved July 5, 2008, from www.darwinismrefuted.com.
Australopithecus. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-250022.
Harrison, Terry. (2008). Fossil Apes. Retrieved July 26, 2008, from http://www.accessscience.com.
Homo sapiens. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica online. Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9040899.
evolution. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica online.Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9106075 .
heredity. (2008). Encyclopædia Britannica online.Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-262020.
human evolution. Encyclopædia Britannica online. (2008). Retrieved July 25, 2008, from http://search.eb.com/eb/article-9117282.
