Difference between revisions of "Primates"
(username removed) |
m (1 revision) |
(No difference)
| |
Revision as of 07:00, 25 May 2014
Primates
Evolution Says....
The Facts Are .....
(1) The fossils do not show a gradual change from insectivores to primates to pre-humans. There is not, as evolution leads people to believe, a smooth transition which proves that humans evolved. [a summary of the facts]
(2) Examination of the fossil record is said to show that insectivores appeared first, then the marsupials, then the primates. This must be accepted on the say-so of writers who promote evolution, and actively filter out all information which does not support it. We cannot accept this evolutionary program for primates, as we must see all the raw data from the fossil record to be able to assess the truth of it.
Experience leads us to place no confidence in the 'facts' presented in writings, as enlightenment in other areas of the fossil study has shown that fossils can be selectively excluded from supporting evidence if their calculated ages do not fit in with the theoretical ages that are used to 'prove' evolution'. (eg. see M. L.
Lubenow, "Bones of Contention", Baker Book House Co: Michigan (1992)) [based on logic]
(3) It has been stated that the early primates who moved to the trees to escape predators changed their anatomy. They are said to have not needed a keen sense of smell, so their nose (olfactory organs) radically reduced in size. Also, as there was little danger from predators, their teeth reduced to being small and simple. It is a common fallacy that an organ that is not needed is reduced and eventually discarded by evolution. To do this, evolution must remove the genes for that structure, but there is no known selection mechanism to do this. [based on logic]
(4) "By comparing the fossil prosimians with the prosimians surviving today in the forests of Madagascar, Africa and southeast Asia, we can infer
the characteristics and ways of life of these early
primates." Inference is not truth. It is not scientifically correct to assign behavioural characteristics from a known source to an unknown (historical) source that no one has ever seen, and then proceed to label the assignment as fact. Evolution cannot be proved in this fashion. David Morgan (ed.) "Biological Science: The Web of Life" (2nd ed.), Australian Academy of Science: Canberra (Australia), 1973 p:738
(5) "One of the implications of the idea of evolution is that organisms which are very similar in characteristics, and therefore classified together, may
have descended from a common ancestor." An
admission that this reasoning is inference, not fact. David Morgan (ed.) "Biological Science: The Web of Life" (2nd ed.), Australian Academy of Science: Canberra (Australia), 1973 p:736
(6) Biologists have noted that if the living primates
are arranged in the sequence, tree shrew, lemur,
tarsius, monkey and ape, there is a progressive increase in the number of characteristics that they possess that are believed to be essential for life in trees. From this they conclude, that the series is the actual sequence for the evolution of these animals. This cannot be used as scientific proof for evolution, as any set of things (living or dead), can be put in a logical, graded sequence if the person knows what the first and last ones should look like. [based on logic]
(7) "..... the transition from insectivore to primate is not documented by fossils. The basis of knowledge about the transition is by inference from living forms." Written by A.J. Kelso (Professor of Physical Anthropology, University of Colorado) in his book "Physical Anthropology" (2nd ed.), J.B. Lippincott: New York, 1974 p:142
(8) "In spite of recent findings, the time and place of origin of order Primates remains shrouded in mystery." Written by Elwyn L. Simons (Department of Geology and Geophysics, Yale University, USA) in his article "The Origin and Radiation of the Primates" in Annals of the New York Academy of Science, Vol. 167, 1969 p:319