[ 30 → 51] Hello, and welcome to Part 2 of Human Evolution, the fall of Darwin's last icon. [ 51 → 78] Here we will cover six important topics that supplement the main presentation in Part 1. [ 78 → 83] During the 20 years in which I have been studying human evolution, I have observed [ 83 → 89] a repeating pattern when Catholics and others who have long accepted evolutionary claims [ 89 → 94] see the hominins covered in Part 1 so strongly discredited. [ 94 → 99] The repeating pattern is to take the position that surely other viable transitional fossils [ 99 → 105] must exist and besides there are bound to be new discoveries forthcoming to support [ 105 → 107] human evolution. [ 107 → 112] A similar response is also heard from the evolutionary establishment and so based on [ 112 → 118] the information presented in Part 1, viewers should ponder how they would react if a well-known [ 118 → 123] evolutionist made a comment such as the following. [ 123 → 128] It is obvious that in the Part 1 critique, the episode selectively omitted a number of [ 128 → 130] recent and very important finds. [ 130 → 136] These finds, as it turns out, offer an alternative and viable pathway leading to Homo sapiens [ 136 → 138] through the Australopithecines. [ 138 → 144] There are a number of Australopithecine species not even addressed in Part 1, including Australopithecus [ 144 → 149] garhi, Australopithecus aethiopicus, and Australopithecus sediba. [ 149 → 154] Any of these species could form a pathway linking Homo with earlier finds such as Ardipithecus [ 154 → 160] ramidus who, despite the criticism mentioned in Part 1, most evolutionists regard as an [ 160 → 163] important transitional form. [ 163 → 167] In addition, Part 1 fails to acknowledge that there is now a possible evolutionary [ 167 → 171] pathway that completely omits the Australopithecines. [ 171 → 176] This pathway involves the very intriguing find Caneanthropus platyops, which is dated [ 176 → 181] to the same period as many of the Australopithecines. [ 181 → 185] In response to these potential statements, several important points should be made. [ 185 → 191] First, the transitional forms discredited in Part 1 comprise the key links in virtually [ 191 → 196] all evolutionary sequences found in textbooks and in scientific literature. [ 196 → 201] While it is true that other claimed transitional forms exist, there is good reason why the [ 201 → 206] candidates mentioned above were not specifically discussed in Part 1. [ 206 → 209] For example, Australopithecus sediba. [ 209 → 213] This find was proposed in 2010 by Lee Berger. [ 213 → 218] Sediba dates less than 2 million years ago, which means that it is not a serious candidate [ 218 → 224] for the direct ancestor to Homo erectus or Homo sapiens when erectus is sunk. [ 224 → 230] Even Berger conceded that sediba dates too late to be a direct human ancestor. [ 230 → 238] Also, it is possible that sediba is a mixture of human and Australopithecine fossils. [ 238 → 244] In 2014, New Scientist featured an article entitled Human, Missing Link Fossils May Be [ 244 → 247] Jumble of Species, and explained, [ 247 → 252] "...the fossils of sediba, which promise to rewrite the story of human evolution, may [ 252 → 255] actually be the remains of two species." [ 255 → 261] Specifically, it appears that the fossilized vertebrae and foot bones attributed to sediba [ 261 → 269] consist of human and australopithecine remains, which would make sediba an invalid taxon. [ 269 → 273] Sediba follows a series of australopithecine species that were announced starting in the [ 273 → 274] 1990s. [ 274 → 280] Other proposed species include Australopithecus garhi, which dated to 2.5 million years ago, [ 280 → 286] and was notable because it was placed on the cover of Time magazine in 1999, just when [ 286 → 290] the science standards controversy was raging in the state of Kansas. [ 290 → 296] However, even most evolutionists have been underwhelmed by Australopithecus garhi, which [ 296 → 301] is a contemporary of other australopithecines. [ 301 → 304] Australopithecus garhi was described in U.S. News & World Report as having [ 304 → 310] "...a brain but a third the size of modern humans, a projecting lower face like a chimp [ 310 → 316] or Lucy, and immense teeth with broad incisors and molars." [ 316 → 318] A science editorial concluded, [ 318 → 324] "...Australopithecus garhi has few traits that definitively link it to Homo, and like [ 324 → 329] other hominids from the same period, it may simply be an evolutionary dead end." [ 329 → 333] Paleoanthropologist Fred Grein concluded, [ 333 → 338] "...it's a possible candidate for Homo ancestry, but no better than Africanus." [ 338 → 344] If it is not a better candidate than Africanus, then it is really no candidate at all. [ 344 → 351] Australopithecus aethiopichus dates to approximately 2.5 million years ago. [ 351 → 357] Based on the extremely primitive shape of its most famous member, the black skull, Australopithecus [ 357 → 364] aethiopichus is usually considered most closely related to the robust australopithecines, [ 364 → 369] which no one places on the path to Homo. [ 369 → 374] Cuneanthropus platyops was proposed by Meave Leahy in 2001. [ 374 → 380] Dating to 3.5 million years ago, this proposed new genus and species could possibly provide [ 380 → 384] an alternative to the australopithecines as the predecessor of Homo. [ 384 → 390] However, the reconstructed skull leading to this proposed taxon was pieced together [ 390 → 396] from not 10, not 110, but 1,100 bone fragments. [ 396 → 402] Many evolutionists have rejected the new classification and attribute any unique features of the specimen [ 402 → 408] to deformation that can occur when so many pieces are involved in reconstruction. [ 408 → 413] Tim White, who suspects the specimen is merely a variant of Australopithecus afarensis, rejects [ 413 → 417] the proposed new classification because of the specimen's [ 417 → 423] extensive deformation and the known cranial variation in early hominid species and among [ 423 → 425] modern apes and humans. [ 425 → 431] In other words, Cuneanthropus platyops fits within the variation among known species and [ 431 → 436] therefore does not justify a new classification. [ 436 → 441] There are also many fossils once claimed to be on man's evolutionary pathway, but that [ 441 → 445] are no longer seen in this light, even by the evolutionists. [ 445 → 451] This includes the Piltdown Man fraud, in which Pierre Teilhard de Chardin participated. [ 451 → 457] This forgery dates to 1908, when amateur geologist Charles Dawson was given part of a human skull [ 457 → 461] by a worker from the gravel pit at Piltdown, England. [ 461 → 467] This led to excavations in 1912, which produced a lower jaw and tooth. [ 467 → 473] In 1953, it was realized that this claimed transitional form, which was declared to be [ 473 → 479] proof of man's evolutionary past for 40 years, was a mixture of a human skull and an orangutan [ 479 → 481] jaw and tooth. [ 481 → 486] In fact, the jawbone and teeth had been stained to give the appearance of antiquity, and the [ 486 → 492] teeth and the jawbone had been filed to look non-human. [ 492 → 496] There is also the famous Nebraska Man, which made headlines around the world as proof of [ 496 → 502] man's evolutionary past, even though this claim was based on a tooth that later turned [ 502 → 507] out to belong to an extinct pig. [ 507 → 512] As seen in the discussion of these additional claimed hominins, evolutionists have no shortage [ 512 → 515] of fossils they can drag out of the closet when useful. [ 515 → 520] But at some point, shouldn't it become apparent to everyone that there simply is no truth [ 520 → 525] to be found in the claims made by the bone peddlers, by the evolutionary biologists of [ 525 → 531] the NAS, and by Kenneth Miller, who assured us that the fossil evidence for human evolution [ 531 → 536] was remarkably strong? [ 536 → 542] The final point to be made is that if you continue to place trust in the claims of paleoanthropologists, [ 542 → 547] who have deceived the world for more than a century, while not producing a single claimed [ 547 → 552] hominin that withstands scrutiny, I hope you are at least honest enough to consider that [ 552 → 558] Catholic or not, you are under the influence of a serious philosophical error. [ 558 → 564] This error can be called scientism, naturalism, materialism, modernism or neo-modernism, but [ 564 → 569] all are rooted in the Cartesian-Darwinian narrative that mandates origins to be the [ 569 → 574] proper subject of natural science, not historical theology. [ 574 → 580] This requires a blind faith that is counter to the scientific evidence and cannot be reconciled [ 580 → 584] with God's revealed truth about human origins. [ 584 → 589] Tragically, as the last three episodes of the series will testify, the lie of human [ 589 → 595] evolution has had devastating historical consequences in the secular world and also in the Catholic [ 595 → 596] Church. [ 596 → 603] These deadly and eternal consequences will continue as long as the lie of human evolution [ 603 → 603] persists. [ 610 → 617] FALSE CLAIMS [ 617 → 621] Viewers may be wondering why so many mistakes and false claims have been made in the field [ 621 → 623] of paleoanthropology. [ 623 → 628] Certainly, philosophical commitment and the desire for fame and funding are partly to [ 628 → 629] blame. [ 629 → 634] The consequence is that, as Sir Sully Zuckerman stated, the interpretation of man's fossil [ 634 → 636] history is little more than [ 636 → 642] a presumed biological science where to the faithful anything is possible, and where the [ 642 → 648] ardent believer is sometimes able to believe several contradictory things at the same time. [ 648 → 654] In this kind of biology, personal attitudes to inquiry and understanding become as dominating [ 654 → 659] as are the facts to which they are related, where fashion and what can now only be called [ 659 → 665] pop science become a far more potent force than scientific criticism. [ 665 → 670] But there are also methodological difficulties involved with fossil interpretation. [ 670 → 676] Specifically, because fossil teeth are, by far, the most common fossils recovered, many [ 676 → 681] species have been launched on the slimmest of fossil teeth evidence, even though the [ 681 → 686] scientific literature makes it clear that this can result in grievous errors. [ 686 → 692] An article in the Journal of Human Evolution comparing the morphology of molars among six [ 692 → 699] primate species found that the predicted evolutionary relationships were in no way congruent with [ 699 → 703] what is known of hominoid biomolecular affinities. [ 703 → 708] In other words, the results from the study of fossil teeth do not agree with the conclusions [ 708 → 711] from molecular or genetic studies. [ 711 → 716] The article also pointed out that fossil studies erroneously assume that features shared [ 716 → 723] by humans and orangutans—low cusps, shallow intercuspal notches, etc.—are indicative [ 723 → 730] of a recent common ancestry, when in fact these are probably only signs of similar diet. [ 730 → 735] In short, although study of molar morphology may yield substantial insights into diets [ 735 → 740] of fossil hominoid primates, there may be severe limitations to their suitability for [ 740 → 745] phylogenetic or evolutionary history inference. [ 745 → 750] Another revealing article in Scientific American explained that problems also arise because [ 750 → 756] the taxonomic position of any new fossil is determined by exquisitely detailed morphological [ 756 → 763] studies of isolated specimens, usually on fossil jaws and teeth, most likely to be preserved. [ 763 → 768] What this procedure tends to ignore is that among such living hominoids as chimpanzees, [ 768 → 773] the jaws and teeth exhibit a high degree of morphological variability. [ 773 → 779] There is no reason to believe the same was not true of hominoids. [ 779 → 785] Further, while species assignments are often based on the number, position, and size of [ 785 → 792] cusps on a tooth, in position of tooth crests, a study in Nature evaluating the influence [ 792 → 796] of gene expression during tooth development found that [ 796 → 802] With increasing expression level of this one gene, ectodysplacin, the number of cusps increases, [ 802 → 810] cusp shapes and positions change, longitudinal crests form, and number of teeth increases. [ 810 → 815] These differences can be traced to a small difference in the formation of an early signaling [ 815 → 819] center at the onset of tooth-crown formation. [ 819 → 823] The study concluded that variation caused by small differences in expression of this [ 823 → 831] single gene may, if not taken into account, obscure evolutionary histories. [ 831 → 836] Another problem is that estimating the age of fossil specimen at death is closely linked [ 836 → 842] to the size and emergence of teeth, and estimating the overall size that the specimen would have [ 842 → 844] reached at maturity are then made. [ 844 → 851] However, studies have shown extreme variation in the age of the emergence of teeth among primates. [ 851 → 856] A study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that [ 856 → 862] Emergence of the permanent teeth in wild chimpanzees is consistently later than 90% of the captive [ 862 → 863] individuals. [ 863 → 869] In many cases, emergence times are completely outside the known range recorded for captive [ 869 → 871] chimpanzees. [ 871 → 877] Thus, the assumed age of fossil specimens at death and the resulting estimate of body [ 877 → 883] size at adulthood may be in substantial error if the potential for variation in tooth emergence [ 883 → 884] is not factored in. [ 884 → 889] Yet there is little understanding of the factors that could affect emergence, or how to factor [ 889 → 892] them into evolutionary studies. [ 892 → 898] Also, although enamel thickness has been used to project fossil, ape, and human phylogeny [ 898 → 904] over the past century, a study in the Journal of Human Evolution recently found that [ 904 → 910] Yet, general characterizations of hominins as having thick enamel oversimplify a surprisingly [ 910 → 917] variable craniodental trait and may bias evolutionary reconstructions if the variation is not taken [ 917 → 919] into account. [ 919 → 924] Finally, it is humorous to read the far-ranging speculations about human evolution and social [ 924 → 928] behavior arising from evolutionist study of fossil teeth. [ 928 → 934] Owen Lovejoy suggests that small tooth size in hominids is an indication of monogamy as [ 934 → 940] males with small teeth would not need to compete effectively with other males for the control [ 940 → 943] of multiple females. [ 943 → 950] As another example, for nearly 20 years, David Pilbeam of Harvard University claimed toolmaking [ 950 → 956] and bipedal status for the small tooth 10 million years ago Ramipithecus before concluding [ 956 → 960] it was an extinct primate most closely related to the orangutan. [ 960 → 979] He explained. [ 979 → 984] Later Pilbeam reflected on the rush to interpret the fossil evidence. [ 984 → 987] His admissions are surprisingly candid. [ 987 → 992] In the course of rethinking my ideas about human evolution, I have changed somewhat as [ 992 → 993] a scientist. [ 993 → 1000] I am aware of the prevalence of implicit assumptions and try harder to dig them out of my own thinking. [1000 → 1008] In paleoanthropology, data are still so sparse that theory heavily influences interpretations. [1008 → 1014] Theories have in the past clearly reflected our current ideologies instead of the actual [1014 → 1015] data. [1015 → 1016] We should not promise too much. [1016 → 1022] In my newly reflective state, I am more sober than I once was about what the unwritten past [1022 → 1024] can tell us. [1024 → 1042] Too often, it has reflected back only what we expect of it. [1042 → 1048] The problematic reliance on fossil teeth is only one of many methodological problems [1048 → 1051] plaguing paleoanthropology. [1051 → 1056] In fact, viewers may have noticed a number of reoccurring errors associated with the [1056 → 1059] hominins previously discussed. [1059 → 1065] When I began studying the hominin record closely in the 1990s, I quickly realized that behind [1065 → 1072] every hominin claim is the violation of one or more logical principles that non-specialists [1072 → 1076] can readily understand and use to assess claims. [1076 → 1081] Since it is certain that new claimed hominins will continue to be forthcoming, four key [1081 → 1088] principles are now set forth to serve as a future guide. [1088 → 1089] Principle number one. [1089 → 1094] It is inappropriate to combine homo fossils with australopithecine fossils and to then [1094 → 1101] claim that the result is a new species displaying a mosaic of ancient and modern features or [1101 → 1106] to average the measurements of such fossils and assert that the fossils are transitional [1106 → 1109] between the australopithecines and homo. [1109 → 1114] This principle needs little discussion as it would result in what is called an invalid [1114 → 1115] taxon. [1115 → 1120] Unfortunately, the violation of this principle is suggested in the scientific literature [1120 → 1127] for many claimed hominins including homo habilis, australopithecus sediba, and australopithecus [1127 → 1129] animensis. [1129 → 1130] Principle number two. [1130 → 1136] A fossil that is morphologically indistinguishable from homo sapiens or that most closely aligns [1136 → 1142] with homo sapiens, also an artifact that is best attributed to homo sapiens, should be [1142 → 1149] assigned to homo sapiens regardless of the estimated age of the fossil or artifact. [1149 → 1154] This logical principle dates back to the first claimed transitional form of Javaman and the [1154 → 1159] objection that the femur cannot be considered as belonging to any species other than homo [1159 → 1164] sapiens since the femur was indistinguishable from that of modern man. [1164 → 1170] This was also the case with the KP271 arm bone and the Laetoli footprints and shows [1170 → 1177] how powerful is the influence of one's preconceived evolutionary sequences. [1177 → 1178] Principle number three. [1178 → 1183] If there are two existing groups, homo sapiens and the orangutan and a third fossil group [1183 → 1189] that is now extinct called the australopithecines, it is inappropriate to assume that the australopithecines [1190 → 1196] gave rise to or are most closely related to homo sapiens, if in fact detailed studies [1196 → 1202] conclude that the australopithecines are more closely related to the orangutan or that the [1202 → 1207] australopithecines were uniquely different from both groups in fundamental ways that [1207 → 1212] eliminate it as an evolutionary ancestor of homo sapiens. [1212 → 1217] The violation of this principle has occurred so often that evolutionists no longer even [1217 → 1222] question whether or not the australopithecines are closely related in form and function to [1222 → 1223] homo. [1223 → 1228] But based on the work of Charles Oxnard, we have seen that the australopithecines are [1228 → 1234] clearly not closely similar to homo, but instead are generally closer to the orangutan, although [1234 → 1236] some of its features are completely unique. [1236 → 1242] Therefore, if the australopithecines did evolve into anything, it would be most logical to [1242 → 1249] conclude that they evolved into the orangutan, not modern man. [1249 → 1251] Principle number 4. [1251 → 1256] New species designations should be avoided unless fossils fall outside the limits of [1256 → 1262] normal variation for established species, and the possibility of genetic defects arising [1262 → 1268] from inbreeding should also be considered before new species are designated. [1268 → 1274] To explain this principle, realize that every evolutionist making a fossil find must make [1274 → 1279] an evaluation as to whether the find justifies launching a new species, or whether it is [1279 → 1285] close enough in morphology to established species, and does not justify the claim of [1285 → 1286] a new species. [1286 → 1292] One of the common maneuvers taken by those anxious to establish new species is the comparison [1292 → 1297] of a fossil's morphology against the average measurements for existing species, rather [1297 → 1302] than comparing the fossil to the range of normal variation found within established [1302 → 1309] species, or to only compare selected characteristics against those of established species. [1309 → 1313] While there is enormous fame and funding to be gained from launching a new species, it [1313 → 1319] is clear that time and again new species have been claimed only to be questioned even among [1319 → 1323] other evolutionists to the violation of this principle. [1323 → 1330] This is the case for Homo ergaster, Homo erectus, Neanderthal man, Homo heidelbergensis, [1330 → 1337] and Cuneanthropus platyops among many other claimed hominins. [1337 → 1343] As new finds that violate these basic principles are announced, look for the confusion to increase [1343 → 1352] not decrease over the already enormous state of confusion that now exists within paleoanthropology. [1352 → 1357] Perhaps this is why the extensively published evolutionist and paleoanthropologist Bernard [1357 → 1364] Wood has told his college students, I'm sorry, but I don't know how to distinguish the earliest [1364 → 1381] hominid from the earliest chimp ancestor anymore. [1381 → 1386] The conclusions reached thus far regarding the lack of fossil evidence for human evolution, [1386 → 1392] and for that matter, any sort of evolution, are not new and are not particularly controversial [1392 → 1395] to many evolutionists. [1395 → 1400] For decades, the lack of transitional forms has been acknowledged in the scientific literature, [1400 → 1406] and in turn, various methods have been proposed to explain why fossil evidence is lacking, [1406 → 1412] or to establish evolutionary relationships in the absence of the so-called missing links. [1412 → 1416] Two concepts will be discussed in this series. [1416 → 1421] One concept is called punctuated equilibrium, and the failure of this concept to save Darwinism [1421 → 1424] will be explained in episode 9. [1424 → 1430] Here we discuss a method of analysis that attempts to establish evolutionary relationships [1430 → 1435] without relying on transitional forms or missing links that is as now acknowledged by many [1435 → 1438] evolutionists may never be found. [1438 → 1442] This method of analysis is called cladistics. [1442 → 1448] When critics of Darwinism point out that there are no viable transitional forms demonstrating [1448 → 1453] evolution, it is common for evolutionists to dismiss criticisms as coming from those [1453 → 1456] who do not understand cladistics. [1456 → 1460] For this reason, it is important to answer the following. [1460 → 1462] What is cladistics? [1462 → 1468] And is cladistics a sound means of confirming that evolution occurred and of establishing [1468 → 1472] evolutionary relationships? [1472 → 1477] Cladistics is defined as a statistical method for analyzing correlations between traits [1477 → 1480] across species. [1480 → 1485] Cladistics rose to prominence in the 1970s and 1980s due to the efforts of a small group [1485 → 1491] of paleontologists led by Colin Patterson who conceded that the fossil evidence was [1491 → 1497] so weak that the evolutionary history of any species can never be established. [1497 → 1503] In a well-known speech given at the American Museum of Natural History, Patterson proclaimed [1503 → 1505] in 1981. [1505 → 1507] Can you tell me anything you know about evolution? [1507 → 1510] Any one thing that is true? [1510 → 1515] I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and [1515 → 1518] the only answer I got was silence. [1519 → 1525] Patterson, who was a paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, also explained [1525 → 1527] in an interview. [1527 → 1531] No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. [1531 → 1533] No one has ever gotten near. [1533 → 1538] All one can learn about the history of life is learned from systematics, from groupings [1538 → 1541] one finds in nature. [1541 → 1545] The rest of it is storytelling of one sort or another. [1545 → 1547] We have access to the tips of a tree. [1547 → 1551] The tree itself is theory and people who pretend to know about the tree and to describe [1551 → 1557] what went on with it, how the branches came off and the twigs came off, are, I think, [1557 → 1562] telling stories. [1562 → 1568] In abandoning the hope of ever finding transitional forms for any evolutionary sequence, cladistics [1568 → 1575] assumes that even if no transitional fossils or common ancestors are found, two species [1575 → 1580] sharing a large number of derived characteristics must be closely related in an evolutionary [1580 → 1586] sense because the only alternative is special creation, but this is not allowed in naturalistic [1586 → 1588] philosophy. [1588 → 1593] Since evolution must be true, all that is needed to establish evolutionary relationships [1593 → 1598] is to tally the derived characteristics shared between two species and, if there are more [1598 → 1604] common characteristics between these two species than other species, the two species must have [1604 → 1606] a close evolutionary relationship. [1606 → 1612] This relationship can be demonstrated using cladograms that look somewhat like an evolutionary [1612 → 1617] tree, but are not intended to imply an exact chronological sequence. [1617 → 1622] In this manner, no transitional fossils are needed to actually establish the presumed [1622 → 1627] close evolutionary relationship between two or more species. [1627 → 1633] Paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Henry Gee explains in his book In Search of [1633 → 1634] Deep Time, [1634 → 1640] Once we realize that deep time can never support narratives of evolution, we are forced to [1640 → 1645] accept that virtually everything we thought we knew about evolution is wrong. [1645 → 1650] If we can never know for certain that any fossil we unearth is our direct ancestor, [1650 → 1656] it is similarly invalid to pluck a string of fossils from deep time, arrange these fossils [1656 → 1662] in chronological order, and assert that this arrangement represents a sequence of evolutionary [1662 → 1664] ancestry and descent. [1664 → 1670] To complicate matters further, such sequences are justified after the fact by tales of inevitable [1670 → 1672] progressive improvement. [1672 → 1678] For example, the evolution of man is said to have been driven by improvements in posture, [1678 → 1682] brain size, etc., but such scenarios are subjective. [1682 → 1686] They can never be tested by experiment, and so they are unscientific. [1686 → 1691] They rely for their currency not on scientific text, but on assertion and the authority of [1691 → 1694] their presentation. [1694 → 1699] In cladistics, presumptions about particular courses of ancestry and descent are abandoned [1699 → 1702] as unprovable or unknowable. [1702 → 1707] It is a formal way of investigating the order in which organisms are cousins by examining [1707 → 1710] the possible alternatives. [1710 → 1715] Cladograms are statements of collateral relationship of greater or lesser extent. [1715 → 1719] Given that, they sidestep the question of whether any fossil is the ancestor of any [1719 → 1724] other because the answer to these questions can never be known. [1724 → 1730] In other words, cladistics acknowledges the discontinuities of deep time and, by acknowledging [1730 → 1733] them, transcends them. [1733 → 1738] But the power of cladistics does not stop there, for it allows evolutionists to ignore [1738 → 1745] the fact that the dates of many fossils do not fit the long-proposed evolutionary relationships. [1745 → 1750] Consider for example the fact that Archaeopteryx, which nearly all evolutionists now admit was [1750 → 1757] a flying bird, is dated to 150 million years ago and is tens of millions of years older [1757 → 1762] than several theropod dinosaurs that many evolutionists insist were the predecessor [1762 → 1764] of modern birds. [1764 → 1767] How can this be argued given the fossil dates? [1767 → 1771] The reasoning used in cladistics is as follows. [1771 → 1777] A. Archaeopteryx is a modern bird dating to 150 million years ago. [1777 → 1783] B. Theropod dinosaur fossil finds dating much younger than Archaeopteryx resemble what evolutionists [1783 → 1789] theorize a dinosaur-to-bird ancestor living before Archaeopteryx may have looked like. [1789 → 1795] C. Since evolution is true, if studies comparing characteristics between Archaeopteryx and [1795 → 1800] the more recent theropods conclude that the younger fossils share more derived characteristics [1800 → 1806] with Archaeopteryx than with other taxons, then Archaeopteryx and the more recent theropod [1806 → 1812] fossils must have shared a common ancestor, even if fossils supporting this conclusion [1812 → 1817] and dating to older than 150 million years ago are never found. [1817 → 1823] D. The common ancestor likely resembled the more primitive but more recently dated theropods [1823 → 1827] than it resembled Archaeopteryx, which is possible if the line of descent leading to [1827 → 1833] the more recently dated theropods did not evolve as quickly as did the line of descent [1833 → 1836] leading to older Archaeopteryx. [1836 → 1840] E. Given the shared characteristics between Archaeopteryx and the theropods, the fossil [1840 → 1844] dates do not matter and neither do the fossils. [1844 → 1849] It is not necessary to find the common ancestor or transitional forms between Archaeopteryx [1849 → 1864] and theropods to conclude that a chicken is a feathered dinosaur. [1864 → 1869] So powerful is the magic of cladistics that it is even used to change the classification [1869 → 1875] of existing hominin fossils when a change helps a favored evolutionary sequence. [1875 → 1880] This has been seen for example with the fossils attributed to Homo rudolfensis which date [1880 → 1886] to 2.3 million years ago and are older than some of the australopithecines that supposedly [1886 → 1888] transitioned to Homo. [1888 → 1891] Here is how it can be done. [1891 → 1892] 1. [1892 → 1896] Group the Homo rudolfensis fossils with Homo habilis fossils and just call the combined [1896 → 1898] group Early Homo. [1898 → 1899] 2. [1899 → 1905] Then select a group of fossils from Early Homo that are to be compared to the australopithecines [1905 → 1911] and Homo erectus, but make sure that australopithecine fossils misclassified as Homo habilis are [1911 → 1914] among those selected for study. [1914 → 1915] 3. [1915 → 1920] Next, compare selected features from the fossil group that support one's intended findings [1920 → 1926] and conclude that as a whole, the cladistic analysis shows that the Early Homo fossil [1926 → 1931] group aligns more closely with the australopithecines than with Homo erectus. [1931 → 1932] 4. [1932 → 1939] Propose that Homo rudolfensis and other fossils combined into Early Homo be placed into Australopithecus [1939 → 1945] and that, if the rudolfensis name is retained, it should be renamed Australopithecus rudolfensis. [1945 → 1950] This avoids the awkward admission that human-like fossils appear in the fossil record at the [1950 → 1958] same time or before some of the key australopithecines that are claimed to have evolved into Homo. [1958 → 1964] While such a reassignment has been argued in the scientific literature, even many evolutionists [1964 → 1969] have rejected the reclassification of the rudolfensis fossils because it would violate [1969 → 1972] established criteria for classifying fossils. [1972 → 1976] This would include the practice of assigning specimens with a cranial capacity of more [1976 → 1980] than 600 cc to Homo. [1980 → 1987] This would be violated with the skulls KNM-ER 1470 and 1590 that have capacities in the [1987 → 1995] range of 750 to 775, as well as the practice of assigning fossil skulls with indications [1995 → 2002] that the individual was capable of speech to Homo, as with KNM-ER 1470. [2002 → 2007] Nevertheless, when trying to deflect criticism of human evolution, many evolutionists will [2007 → 2013] deny the human-like morphology of rudolfensis and explain that a number of their colleagues [2013 → 2022] believe the fossils should be classified as australopithecines. [2022 → 2027] Although cladistics is a clever route taken to bypass contemporary status issues and the [2027 → 2031] lack of fossil evidence, many problems plague the method. [2031 → 2037] First, it should be realized that cladistics arose out of an admission by evolutionists [2037 → 2042] that the fossil record has not revealed the needed transitional forms and does not provide [2042 → 2045] direct evidence for evolution. [2045 → 2051] Second, cladistics does not establish that evolution has occurred, it merely assumes [2051 → 2056] that evolution has occurred, and then arranges groups in a way that may illustrate plausible [2056 → 2059] evolutionary relationships. [2059 → 2063] Henry Gee illustrates this basic assumption, writing that [2063 → 2069] Even if we can never know what actually happened, we do know that fossils A and B are somehow [2069 → 2075] related through a shared common heritage, because such a relationship must be true for [2075 → 2077] any pair of organisms. [2077 → 2083] Such thinking ignores the fact that if evolution did not occur, if similarities are the result [2083 → 2088] of creation, then cladistics is a meaningless exercise. [2089 → 2094] Third, cladistics has raised as many questions as it has solved because conclusions often [2094 → 2100] differ from those of other methodologies and leads to contention even among evolutionists, [2100 → 2105] as cladists tend to rely on their results exclusively. [2105 → 2110] One common source of conflict is between the conclusions of cladists and the results of [2110 → 2112] molecular or genetic studies. [2112 → 2114] But this is just the beginning. [2114 → 2118] An American zoologist, Peter Dodson, remarks [2118 → 2125] Cladistics systematically excludes data from stratigraphy, embryology, ecology, and biogeography [2125 → 2130] that could otherwise be employed to bring maximum evolutionary coherence to biological [2130 → 2131] data. [2131 → 2139] Darwin would have convinced no one if he had been so restrictive in his theory of evolution. [2139 → 2145] In the area of human evolution, it is revealing that evolutionary relationships predicted [2145 → 2151] through cladistic analysis differs from the relationships suggested by molecular studies, [2151 → 2155] according to two leading evolutionists published in the Proceedings of the National Academy [2155 → 2158] of Sciences, who conclude [2158 → 2165] Craniodental data can return impressive levels of statistical support, e.g. 97% for phylogenetic [2165 → 2169] relationships that are most likely incorrect. [2169 → 2174] In other words, cladistic analyses of higher primate craniodental morphology may yield [2174 → 2180] not only false positive results, but false positive results that pass, by a substantial [2180 → 2185] margin, the statistical tests favored by many researchers. [2185 → 2191] Fourth, the fact that cladistics ignores fossil dates does not mean that dating issues disappear [2191 → 2192] altogether. [2192 → 2197] For example, given the current theropod fossil record, the relative dating issues between [2197 → 2203] Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs remains a real one, even in the minds of evolutionists. [2203 → 2209] As evolutionist and critic of the dinosaur-to-bird theory, Alan Fiducia states [2209 → 2215] The stratigraphic sequence of bird-like theropods has been almost the reversal of the expected [2215 → 2218] evolutionary sequence leading to birds. [2218 → 2224] He further calls it a paradox, to allude to the fact that the most truly bird-like dinosaurs [2224 → 2230] occur some 60-80 million years after the earliest known bird, Archaeopteryx. [2230 → 2235] If birds are derived from theropods, then one would expect to see bird-like dinosaurs [2235 → 2240] abundant in the fossil record prior to the late Jurassic Archaeopteryx. [2240 → 2243] No such specimens have been described. [2243 → 2250] Fifth, cladograms are based on the number of derived evolutionary characteristics between [2250 → 2251] groups. [2251 → 2253] But this is not always easy to determine. [2253 → 2258] A cladogram would be in error if it were constructed assuming that similar characteristics [2258 → 2264] were derived and indicated common ancestry, when, in fact, these similarities were the [2264 → 2270] result of convergent evolution, the independent evolution of similar features in evolutionary [2270 → 2272] distant groups. [2272 → 2275] Cambridge professor Simon Conway Morris concedes that [2275 → 2281] At the moment, it is still very difficult to decide between characters that are of genuine [2281 → 2286] use in determining evolutionary relationships as against those that have arisen by convergence [2286 → 2290] from unrelated ancestors. [2290 → 2295] Cladists reply that error is minimized by using the principle of parsimony, in which [2295 → 2301] evolutionary relationships are assumed to be closest between groups requiring the fewest [2301 → 2305] evolutionary changes from an assumed common ancestor. [2305 → 2310] However, Darwinism is said to be a random directionless process, and so there is no [2310 → 2316] reason to assume that evolution operates efficiently by the principle of parsimony. [2316 → 2321] If evolutionists accept convergence, then the principle of parsimony can be violated. [2340 → 2351] When discussing human evolution, a commonly encountered claim is that human DNA is 98% [2351 → 2354] similar to that of chimpanzees. [2354 → 2359] The implication is that if humans and chimps are only 2% different, we must have a clear [2359 → 2362] and close evolutionary relationship. [2362 → 2368] But this is yet another evolution story, based on fiction, not fact. [2368 → 2373] Several initial studies of human and chimp genetic similarities were reported in Nature [2373 → 2379] and in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in the early 2000s. [2379 → 2388] These studies estimated a human-chimp genetic dissimilarity in the range of 3.9% to 13%. [2388 → 2395] Even at the lower end of such estimates, the difference is a staggering 117 million nucleotide [2395 → 2396] differences. [2396 → 2401] To put that in a different perspective, the average 8.5 x 11 inch piece of paper can hold [2401 → 2403] about 4,000 letters. [2403 → 2411] It would take 29,250 pages to record all the differences between humans and chimps at only [2411 → 2419] a 3.9% difference and nearly 100,000 pages to record a 13% difference. [2419 → 2425] Given evolutionary estimates of the divergence between humans and chimps approximately 300,000 [2425 → 2433] generations ago, that's an estimated 390 to 1,300 mutations per generation. [2433 → 2439] And those mutations have to occur in the germline, a very specific subset of cells, or they will [2439 → 2442] not be passed on to the next generation. [2442 → 2448] According to a 2016 paper in Genetics, the average mutation rate in the germ cell line [2448 → 2454] in humans, including both single substitutions as well as insertions, deletions, and large [2454 → 2459] structural changes is only 100 base pairs per generation. [2459 → 2463] The rate of mutation in chimps is similar. [2463 → 2468] When taken both together, they only account for half to less than one-sixth of the differences [2468 → 2472] actually observed between humans and chimps. [2472 → 2477] And that is assuming the evolutionists are correct in thinking they had 7 million years [2477 → 2481] for these mutations to accumulate. [2481 → 2485] What is even more important to consider is that the early reported similarities that [2485 → 2491] have found their way into the textbooks and into colloquial jargon were highly inflated. [2491 → 2496] This was due to the original draft of the chimpanzee genome being assembled using the [2496 → 2500] already established human genome as a framework. [2500 → 2506] In other words, the human genome was assembled using a tedious shotgun method of aligning [2506 → 2513] bits of disconnected human DNA sequences against each other with no template for reference. [2513 → 2519] But the chimpanzee genome was aligned by first comparing it to the human sequence and then [2519 → 2522] assembling it into a published genome. [2522 → 2528] This means that many observed similarities in early studies are more likely to be artifacts [2528 → 2532] of the experimental method than true similarities. [2532 → 2538] An improved chimpanzee genome draft was published in 2018, though parts of the sequence are [2538 → 2541] still not fully assembled. [2541 → 2548] Comparisons of this new draft to the human genome sequence suggest a minimum of 16% dissimilarity, [2548 → 2553] or 480 million base pair differences. [2553 → 2559] To make matters even worse, a paper in Nature Genetics in 2018 reported that the published [2559 → 2564] human genome sequence, which is currently being used for comparative research, may be [2564 → 2571] missing 296,485,284 base pairs. [2571 → 2578] This finding means that the actual dissimilarity could be as high as 24%. [2578 → 2583] While some of the undocumented human sequence may prove to be similar to chimp sequence, [2583 → 2591] the discovery of these additional sequences is highly likely to decrease our overall similarity. [2591 → 2597] Dr. Kevin Mark will now review some of the important points made in this segment. [2597 → 2602] When the real genetic differences between humans and chimps are evaluated, evolutionary [2602 → 2608] claims are shown to be aggrandized yet again, as the actual data supports much more modest [2608 → 2608] similarities. [2609 → 2613] The actual data is fully compatible with the traditional interpretation of the special [2613 → 2616] creation of man directly by God. [2616 → 2621] What is even more important to take into consideration is that these differences and similarities [2621 → 2628] really only matter if the sequences being examined are truly independent of one another. [2628 → 2634] The human genome was indeed sequenced independently over a period of about 10 years, using only [2634 → 2639] directly obtained data from whole genome libraries. [2639 → 2644] This was done using what was called the shotgun method of identifying overlapping areas of [2644 → 2649] sequence between different fragments in the library, and painstakingly organized these [2649 → 2652] overlaps into the full sequence. [2652 → 2658] Unfortunately, due to the assumptions of evolutionists and a desire to save time and taxpayer dollars, [2658 → 2662] the chimpanzee genome was not sequenced in the same way. [2662 → 2667] Instead, the genome libraries that were created were compiled into the sequence using the [2667 → 2671] already established human genome as a framework. [2671 → 2676] This means that any observed similarities may be due to actual sequence similarity in [2676 → 2682] the two species, but are equally likely, if not more likely, to be simply artifacts of [2682 → 2684] the experimental method. [2684 → 2688] In other words, the sequences are similar because one was assembled using the other [2688 → 2689] as a template. [2693 → 2696] The Great Apes [2704 → 2709] Since evolution argues that we share a common ancestor with the great apes, it has to account [2709 → 2713] for the genetic differences between man and ape. [2713 → 2718] One notable difference concerns chromosomes, which are thread-like structures in the nucleus [2718 → 2722] of most cells that carry information in the form of genes. [2723 → 2728] Genes have 23 pairs of chromosomes while apes have 24 pairs, and so the question arises [2728 → 2735] how this could be if the two have a close evolutionary relationship. [2735 → 2741] According to biologist Ken Miller, two possibilities could account for the so-called missing chromosome [2741 → 2742] in man. [2742 → 2748] Either one chromosome pair was lost after man branched off from the great apes, or two [2748 → 2755] chromosomes fused together in an early ape-like hominid that later evolved into man. [2755 → 2761] Miller dismisses the first option, however, as the loss of that much genetic information [2761 → 2767] would result in severe abnormalities or even infant mortality, and so he defends the alternative [2767 → 2771] fusion explanation. [2771 → 2776] Chromosomal fusion was first proposed based on similar banding patterns observed in human [2776 → 2778] and chimp chromosomes. [2778 → 2784] Chromosome bands are produced by staining chromosomes with dyes that result in a characteristic [2784 → 2791] pattern of bright and dark stripes that can be used to identify certain chromosomal characteristics. [2791 → 2798] Methods of chromosome banding were developed in 1969-1970, and it was shortly after this, [2798 → 2804] in 1974, that the discrepancy in chromosome number between apes and man was first attributed [2805 → 2810] to a fusion of two chromosomes after the purported split from the apes. [2810 → 2817] Thus, the supposed new evidence for common ancestry between humans and apes is 45 years [2817 → 2818] old. [2818 → 2820] Only more details have been added. [2820 → 2824] But do the details really support the fusion claim? [2824 → 2830] Ken Miller points out that a potential fusion should have two main characteristics. [2830 → 2836] The presence of telomere sequences, or repetitive DNA elements that are normally found at the [2836 → 2843] end of chromosomes in the middle of the chromosome, and an inactivated centromere, or DNA element [2843 → 2848] that is involved in the proper regulation of cell division and should occur only once [2848 → 2850] per chromosome. [2850 → 2856] Miller then asserts that both of these telltale signs have now been identified at sites on [2856 → 2863] chromosome 2 in humans that match up perfectly with two chimp chromosomes, which have subsequently [2863 → 2866] been named 2A and 2B. [2866 → 2872] While evolutionary biologists such as Miller proclaim that the added evidence is one of [2872 → 2877] the strongest, if not the strongest, current argument for common descent, the truth is [2877 → 2884] that the fusion claim faces a number of serious problems that continue to increase as more [2884 → 2886] research is published. [2886 → 2892] First, initial reports of DNA sequence at the fusion site showed a number of telomere [2892 → 2899] repeats and a head-to-head arrangement that, if it was the product of a fusion event, would [2899 → 2902] indicate a telomere-to-telomere fusion. [2902 → 2907] The reports failed to mention that if human chromosome 2 was actually the product of a [2907 → 2913] fusion event, it would be the first fusion of this kind identified in mammals. [2913 → 2919] The fusions that have been identified in mammals are always either telomere-to-satellite [2919 → 2925] DNA or satellite DNA-to-satellite DNA, not telomere-to-telomere. [2925 → 2928] According to Dr. Jeffrey Tompkins, [2928 → 2933] The absence of documented end-to-end telomere fusions in living mammals is largely due to [2933 → 2939] the fact that telomeres contain a highly specialized endcap called the shelterin protein complex [2939 → 2941] that protects them from fusion. [2942 → 2948] Thus, to propose a telomere-to-telomere fusion is to propose a biological novelty that places [2948 → 2952] the fusion story on shaky grounds from the start. [2952 → 2960] Second, if the site is the result of a telomere-to-telomere fusion, there should be a large number of [2960 → 2964] telomere repeat sequences present at the site. [2964 → 2970] Instead, evolutionary biologists have noted the incredible scarcity of telomeric repeats [2970 → 2973] around the supposed fusion site. [2973 → 2980] While IJDO reported approximately 1,900 bases of repeats, most of which are degenerate in [2980 → 2986] some way, Bergman and Tompkins make the case that only 800 bases of this region reasonably [2986 → 2989] aligned with true telomeric DNA. [2989 → 2995] Both sets of researchers acknowledge that this is a significantly less repetitive sequence [2995 → 3001] than one would expect to see if a telomere-to-telomere fusion really occurred. [3001 → 3007] Third, researchers writing in Nature in the Journal of Molecular Biology allow for the [3007 → 3014] possibility that the actual observed sequences could be due to a random small duplication [3014 → 3016] and inversion. [3016 → 3022] This is a type of mutation that could be reasonably attributed to the inaccuracy of the enzyme [3022 → 3024] DNA polymerase. [3024 → 3030] While this DNA-building enzyme has extremely high average accuracy, making about one mistake [3030 → 3036] every billion base pairs, it has been observed that occasionally the enzyme will dissociate [3036 → 3043] from the DNA strand it is using as the template and re-associate at the wrong place, thus [3043 → 3049] re-reading a bit of the template strand that it already copied and producing a second copy [3049 → 3050] of the same sequence. [3050 → 3056] This slippage results in tandem repeats or multiple copies of the same sequence next [3056 → 3062] to each other in the DNA, and these repeated sequences have been observed experimentally [3062 → 3065] under a variety of different circumstances. [3065 → 3071] The slippage sequences are in fact very similar to the putative fusion site, much more so [3071 → 3076] than other documented fusions to which it has been compared. [3076 → 3083] Thus, the observable evidence suggests that the site is not actually the result of a fusion, [3083 → 3086] but of mutational events. [3086 → 3091] It is interesting to note that while the original authors of the comparative genome studies [3091 → 3097] concede that there is an alternative naturalistic explanation for the proposed fusion site, [3097 → 3103] Ken Miller asserts that if ancestral fusion did not occur, the only possible explanation [3103 → 3107] is that God made it look that way in order to deceive us. [3107 → 3113] Thus, Miller relies upon weak philosophical and theological arguments to support his forced [3113 → 3118] conclusion, while better scientific explanations are ignored. [3118 → 3123] Now, of course few in his audience have the technical knowledge and have done the research [3123 → 3129] to understand that there are other scientific explanations that better account for the data, [3129 → 3135] and they must trust that Miller is looking at the evidence objectively, which is not the case. [3135 → 3142] It is the same approach used by Darwin, Huxley, and other peddlers of the evolutionary hypothesis. [3142 → 3149] Fourth, evidence of a second cryptic centromere site is even less clear. [3149 → 3155] Initial research using DNA hybridization techniques identified a region in human chromosome 2 [3155 → 3163] that contained at least two alphoid sequences in an area outside of the chromosome's functional centromere. [3163 → 3169] These sequences are a type of satellite DNA that is always present in centromeres and [3169 → 3174] were initially thought to be evidence of a degenerate centromere that had been inactivated [3174 → 3177] after the supposed fusion event. [3177 → 3185] Alphoid sequences are generally repeated an average of 17 to 18 times in most human centromeres. [3185 → 3190] The article that characterized the initial cryptic alphoid sequences in human chromosome 2 [3190 → 3196] did not comment on their scarcity, nor did it mention that alphoid sequences can be found [3196 → 3202] scattered throughout the length of many chromosomes and not just in centromere sites. [3202 → 3208] Tompkins and Bergman point out that alphoid DNA sequences are commonly found in hundreds [3208 → 3211] of non-centromere sites. [3211 → 3216] Both the fact that this type of sequence is found in many places throughout the genome [3216 → 3221] and the fact that only one-ninth of the alphoid sequence that should be present is even presumably [3221 → 3227] identifiable are evidence that it is not at all certain that what is presumed to be an [3227 → 3233] inactivated centromere was ever actually a centromere region at all. [3233 → 3239] Fifth, there is very little similarity between chimp and human alphoid sequences and the [3239 → 3246] specific sequences located at the putative second centromere site do not match either [3246 → 3253] the centromere on chimp chromosome 2a or 2b or match anything in the chimpanzee genome [3253 → 3254] at all. [3254 → 3261] In fact, a study as far back as 1995 used hybridization experiments to compare human [3261 → 3267] and chimp alphoid sequences and found that very few of the probes actually matched their [3267 → 3274] corresponding homologous chromosome, a surprising conclusion that did not and still does not [3274 → 3277] fit with the evolutionary narrative. [3277 → 3285] Sixth, the problem of non-matching sequence data is compounded as more sequences are studied. [3285 → 3292] Additional research on the purported second centromere site led to identification of 184 [3292 → 3298] significant sequences of mini-satellite DNA that were also thought to potentially be indicative [3298 → 3300] of an inactivated centromere. [3300 → 3306] The researchers reporting on the mini-satellite DNA noted that less than half of the sequences [3306 → 3313] shared significant sequence similarity with chimp sequences in a genome-wide search. [3313 → 3319] Interestingly, the researchers' data indicated a higher similarity between humans and chimps [3319 → 3324] than between Neanderthals or Denisovans and chimps. [3324 → 3329] This finding is difficult to reconcile with an evolutionary view as it would require that [3329 → 3335] some of the mutations that arose as the lineages separated spontaneously converted back to [3335 → 3339] the original human-chimp ancestor sequence. [3339 → 3344] Such reversions back to an original ancestral sequence are not generally accepted in evolutionary [3344 → 3346] theory. [3347 → 3354] Finally, the fusion site rests in the first intron of the recently characterized DDX11L2 [3354 → 3361] gene and has been reported by ENCODE to be a site of attachment for transcription factors, [3361 → 3367] or proteins that turn genes on and off, as well as being marked by histones, special [3367 → 3373] proteins that bind DNA in the nucleus in a way that is normally associated with actively [3373 → 3375] transcribed genes. [3375 → 3383] DDX11L2 is also co-expressed in multiple tissue types with genes that have a similar sequence, [3383 → 3389] suggesting it may play a regulatory role in the expression of those genes. [3389 → 3394] Taken together, all of this data strongly suggests that far from being a relic, the [3394 → 3402] purported fusion site may be actively involved in regulation of genes within the DDX11L family [3402 → 3409] and is certainly being actively transcribed at a level consistent with a regulatory function. [3409 → 3414] Not surprisingly, the initial research that characterized the gene at the fusion site [3414 → 3417] has not been followed up. [3417 → 3422] Evolutionists are seriously hampering advances in scientific knowledge by assigning the elements [3422 → 3428] around the purported fusion site an identity as functionless relics of a supposed human-chimp [3428 → 3431] split. [3431 → 3435] Taken together, it seems that there are many reasons for doubting Miller's claims of [3435 → 3441] chromosome 2 fusion as outstanding proof of human and ape common ancestry. [3441 → 3447] Again, it is not surprising that he has resorted to such a sophisticated argument as one would [3447 → 3452] need to be a specialist to decipher the problems surrounding the fusion claim. [3452 → 3458] Even so, this introductory discussion serves to illustrate that there are ample reasons [3458 → 3464] to add this recent icon to the pile of rejected evolutionary claims that continue to be a [3464 → 3473] source of embarrassment for evolutionary scientists. [3473 → 3478] So many statements of doubt about human evolution have been expressed by those who have studied [3478 → 3484] the evidence that it is difficult to identify the best summary of just how poorly evolutionists [3484 → 3486] have made their case. [3486 → 3489] Two of the most telling statements follow. [3489 → 3494] The first was written by Malcolm Muggeridge in The End of Christendom. [3494 → 3499] I myself am convinced that the theory of evolution, especially the extent to which it's been [3499 → 3504] applied, will be one of the great jokes in the history books in the future. [3504 → 3510] Posterity will marvel that so very flimsy and dubious an hypothesis could be accepted [3510 → 3515] with the incredible credulity that it has. [3515 → 3521] The second statement is by Søren Loftrup in Darwinism, the refutation of a myth. [3521 → 3526] I believe that one day the Darwinian myth will be ranked the greatest deceit in the [3526 → 3528] history of science. [3528 → 3534] When this happens, many people will pose the question, how did this ever happen? [3534 → 3539] The one thing from these statements that I would call attention to is the presumption [3539 → 3546] that evolution will someday be rejected, because it raises the question, how will this [3546 → 3550] presumed rejection of Darwinism come about? [3550 → 3554] Clearly it will not come about through the evolutionary establishment, and those who [3554 → 3560] insist that science is self-correcting simply fail to acknowledge that evolution is not [3560 → 3567] science, but part of a false and deadly philosophy that is religiously held by those who control [3567 → 3569] the reins of science. [3569 → 3574] How then will the restoration of truth about origins occur? [3574 → 3580] I believe that despite the current view toward evolution in many Catholic circles, the restoration [3580 → 3583] must and will involve the Catholic Church. [3583 → 3589] In the short term, the movement toward restoration will heavily rely on the Catholic laity. [3589 → 3595] Eventually, I believe that the restoration will involve formal declarations by the Magisterium [3595 → 3602] before or during a future church council that will rid the faith of many errors. [3602 → 3607] Such a council has been foretold by a number of authentic mystics, including the Venerable [3607 → 3615] Bartholomew Holzhauser, who lived from 1613 to 1658, at the very time that Cartesian rationalism [3615 → 3618] was infecting the Western world. [3618 → 3620] Venerable Holzhauser prophesied, [3620 → 3625] No one will be able to pervert the word of God, since there will be an ecumenical council [3625 → 3629] which will be the greatest of all councils. [3629 → 3634] By the grace of God, atheism and every heresy will be banished from the earth. [3634 → 3640] The council will define the true sense of Holy Scripture, and this will be believed [3640 → 3644] and accepted by everyone. [3644 → 3650] Whether the full restoration of truth about origins in the Church and society occurs before, [3650 → 3655] during, or after this future council, it is vital for Catholics who are not currently [3655 → 3659] under the spell of evolution to work diligently now. [3659 → 3664] For it is in the darkest part of the night that the light of truth is needed most. [3664 → 3671] This work will not be easy, because as explained in a Catholic assessment of evolution theory, [3671 → 3677] At the present time, the field of paleoanthropology is largely immune from objective outside criticism [3677 → 3682] because few other than the self-deceived and self-promoting understand the terminology [3682 → 3684] and methods used. [3684 → 3689] Only they have direct access to the evidence, and their unfounded conclusions are welcomed [3689 → 3693] by like-minded educators who seek to indoctrinate children. [3693 → 3698] Meanwhile, men of goodwill outside of the field, and this includes many Catholic clergy [3698 → 3704] and apologists, must either presume that there is real science behind the claims for evolution, [3704 → 3710] or express uncertainty about the fact of human evolution at the risk of being ridiculed [3710 → 3715] as biblical literalists, ignorant, and opposed to science. [3715 → 3719] In turn, those Catholics who presume that there is real science behind evolutionary [3719 → 3727] claims often buy into the accompanying rhetoric and may also denounce criticisms of evolution. [3727 → 3732] The evolutionists are only too glad to use such men when it helps hide the many shortfalls [3732 → 3738] in their story, which are readily evident and even admitted to in the scientific literature. [3738 → 3745] When evolutionists and trusting men of faith join to discourage or shout down the opposition, [3745 → 3750] the case for human evolution is never called to the witness stand, so to speak, where even [3750 → 3757] basic exercises in logic expose the story as untenable. [3757 → 3764] And so with a full understanding of how difficult the task before us is, we end this episode [3764 → 3770] with an encouragement and challenge from the closing words of Repairing the Breach. [3770 → 3777] These words are an echo of Thomas Huxley's 1860 impassioned plea to England's men of [3777 → 3782] science that helped bring about the evolution revolution. [3782 → 3787] In this case, however, the plea for action is made to those Catholics and other viewers [3787 → 3795] who have not elevated evolutionary claims to a first principle. [3795 → 3800] The evolutionary and rationalistic worldviews flowing from false science and false philosophy [3800 → 3806] are not the first and will not be the last of the great challenges facing the Catholic [3806 → 3809] Church that pleads for attention from this generation. [3809 → 3815] But to those who watch the signs of the times, it seems plain that it will be the most important [3815 → 3820] as it lies at the basis of the moral collapse and internal dissension in the Church in the [3820 → 3825] past century, as well as the events and crises about to unfold. [3825 → 3830] Through what trials and sore contests the Church will have to pass in the course of [3830 → 3834] helping to rid the Christian faith of these false views, who can tell? [3834 → 3839] But we verily believe that the part which the Catholic Church may play in the battle [3839 → 3842] is a grand and a noble one. [3842 → 3844] Will the Catholic Church play this part? [3844 → 3851] That depends upon how you, the Catholic clergy, her faithful men of philosophy and science, [3851 → 3855] and the Catholic laity deal with the call to stand for truth. [3855 → 3857] Cherish truth. [3857 → 3858] Venerate truth. [3858 → 3863] Follow truth to the degree directed in the Holy Scriptures, in your doctrine, and by [3863 → 3870] your doctors Aquinas and Magnus, faithfully and implicitly in the application to all branches [3870 → 3871] of human thought. [3871 → 3876] And the future of this Church and her faithful will be greater than the past. [3876 → 3881] Listen to those who would silence the Catholic Church and crush her through the teaching [3881 → 3888] of materialistic science, false philosophy, and liberal theology, and we fair your children [3888 → 3893] will see the glory of the Catholic Church fade, like Arthur in the mist.