afdave
Posted: May 08 2006,08:55
DIFFICULT QUESTIONS REMAIN FOR APE/HUMAN ORIGINS
I appreciate the good information that was exchanged on my "Chimp Chromosome Thread." I have learned some important information regarding the similarity of the genomes of apes and humans. I agree that the similarities are quite striking indeed and cannot be dismissed as some Creationists attempt to do.
However, I believe there are a number of major issues which would have to be solved before a scientist could logically adopt the firm position that humans and apes DO IN FACT share a common ancestor. Of course, I am becoming quite proficient at searching the "Index to Creationist Claims" and the Article DB at Talk Origins now BEFORE posting my questions here, so as not to waste your time. I will summarize the points of agreement that I share with Neo-Darwinists, then pose my questions. I have surveyed the various Creationist refutations of common descent for apes and humans and have found most of them to be inadequate. These inadequacies are spelled out rather nicely by Todd Charles Wood (2006) of the Center for Origins Research at Bryan College in Dayton, Tennessee, who appears from this paper to be a fair-minded creationist.
Wood Article (2006)
Points of Agreement between myself (Wood also) and Common Descent Advocates
(1) Nucleotide mismatches appear to be very small ~1.5%
(2) Alignment gaps are also very small ~3-4%
(3) Human Chromosome 2 does in fact appear to be a result of the fusion of 2 chimp chromosomes
(4) The pseudogene for Vitamin C production does in fact appear to support common descent theory
(5) Body similarities are indeed very striking and pose interesting questions
(6) Many creationist arguments are inadequate.
Summary of Inadequacies of Creationist Responses (Wood)
(1) Similarity pointing to Common Design is inadequate.
Quote omitted
(2) Possibility of higher % differences proves nothing.
Quote omitted
(3) There may be NO "Haldane's Dillema" at all.
Quote omitted
Wood then goes on to propose an intriguing alternative ...
Quote omitted
and he asks an important question which serves as an excellent prelude to my own questions ...
Quote
What is a Genome? This might seem like a trivial and self-evident question, but its simplicity hides a deep challenge (Wood 2001). The Bible teaches that God created adult organisms and presumably even complete ecosystems by covering the land with plants. Thus, the Bible favors a holistic perspective of organisms. Modern molecular biology has favored the opposite perspective: that life is the complicated interaction of molecules and that DNA is the “code of life.” If the molecular viewpoint is correct, then the differences between organisms that really matter are indeed the differences in the DNA.
and Yada yada
This paper by Wood is quite interesting to me and serves well as a prelude to my own questions which I shall now present to you ...
(1) How do we explain the complete lack of 'Hominid Civilizations' (for lack of a better term) today? It seems to me that if Common Descent Theory is correct, that we would expect to see numerous 'civilizations' of 'less evolved' humans. I suppose a hopeful candidate for this type of civilization has been the remote tribes of jungle natives found throughout the world. However, I have firsthand experience with one such tribe, the Wai-Wai indians of Southern Guyana/Northern Brazil (My father is a Bible Translator for this tribe), and we have observed no evidence of anything 'primitive' about their human characteristics. To be sure, their civilization and technology was quite primitive (they were basically hunter/gatherers), but their language is every bit as complex as English or Spanish or many other languages (I speak the language some and have a copy of their grammar, which my dad produced). Their behaviour is in no way 'primitive' for the purpose of determining if they are 'less evolved.' They laugh, cry, make jokes, tell stories, get mad at one another, read, write, learn foreign languages, play guitars and keyboards, have political battles, and in short do everything that any human society also does. The main difference is in technology, which of course is not advanced. As far as I know, there are Apes and there are Humans. And there are no existing 'in-betweens.' How do you explain this?
(2) The fossil record of human evolution is unconvincing to me. Here is the supposed evidence from Talk Origins ...
Quote omitted
Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human? i.e. Pygmies and 'Aborigines' ?
(3) Some have claimed that for all practical purposes, we are apes and biologically speaking, I see what they are saying. But does this not minimize the ENORMOUS non-biological differences? Humans have highly complex symbolic languages. Apes probably communicate some, but do they communicate in DIFFERENT LANGUAGES in different parts of the world? Are there any apes that have learned how to write? Do apes organize themselves into 'governments' and seek to conquer other ape groups? Is there any indication of abstract thinking among the apes? Is there any evidence of any 'technology' developed by apes? Even primitive technology? And this is only the tip of the iceberg with such questions.
(4) Has anyone thought about the implications of an assertion by a government entity that "Apes are 98.5% human and therefore should be afforded certain 'human rights.'" This would be a silly idea to me of course, but it appears to be a logical conclusion of some evolutionist thinking.
(5) Was not Adolf Hitler affected by current evolutionary thinking when he came up with his "Aryan Master Race" theory? I believe he was, and why shouldn't he have been? Isn't it logical to assume that some races might be 'less evolved' than others if human evolution is true? How about slavery? Did not many whites view themselves as 'more evolved' than blacks, thus justifying their ownership and ill treatment of slaves? And if human evolution is true, why would Hitler and slave owners be wrong in their actions? After all, we 'enslave' chimps in zoos and we do medical experiments resulting in the death of lab rats. Why should we not do the same with 'less evolved' humans?
My conclusion then is that in spite of striking genome similarities, humans and the apes are VERY DIFFERENT in many important ways. All the evidence that I have seen so far is explained in a much better way by the Biblical assertion that mankind was made "in the image of God." It appears to me also that Neo-Darwininsts are not even close to being able to answer ANY of the above questions in a satisfactory manner. But maybe you will prove me wrong.
OK. That should do it for starters. I welcome your comments.
----------------------------------
Arden Chatfield said ...
Quote
The 'Hitler = Darwin' equation has been tried out by every creationist for the last 60 years. It's bullshit. Start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA006_1.html
I did and it is extremely weak.
Then go look here for a much stronger case.
The Holocaust and Darwinism
Quote
Hitler was especially determined to prevent Aryans from breeding with non-Aryans, a concern that eventually resulted in the ‘final solution’. Once the inferior races were exterminated, Hitler believed that future generations would be eternally grateful for the improvement that his programs brought to humanity:
‘The Germans were the higher race, destined for a glorious evolutionary future. For this reason it was essential that the Jews should be segregated, otherwise mixed marriages would take place. Were this to happen, all nature’s efforts “to establish an evolutionary higher stage of being may thus be rendered futile” (Mein Kampf).’ 20
Individuals are not only far less important than the race, but the Nazis concluded that certain races were not human, but were animals:
‘The Jews, labelled subhumans, became nonbeings. It was both legal and right to exterminate them in the collectivist and evolutionist viewpoint. They were not considered … persons in the sight of the German government.’ 34
As a result, the Darwinist movement was ‘one of the most powerful forces in the nineteenth–twentieth centuries German intellectual history [and] may be fully understood as a prelude to the doctrine of national socialism [Nazism]’.35 Why did evolution catch hold in Germany faster, and take a firmer hold there than any other place in the world?
But OK. You don't want to accept this? What about the other questions?
Ltracey said ...
Quote
Whoa, I seriously cannot believe we just saw another instance of "why are there still pygmies and dwarves?".
That's not what I am saying. I am saying if a pygmy or some LIVING HUMAN that is not the same size or shape as the mean average of all humans, could not the fossil it made be virtually indistinguishable from the supposed human ancestor fossils found at Talk Origins.
I'm saying that if certain LIVING HUMANS and LIVING APES died, we might easily have the same fossil situation that we currently do have. Is this not correct?
Tom Ames said ...
Quote
"What is the Bernoulli effect? Well, the Bible teaches..." Sounds kinda dumb, doesn't it?
Sure, THAT does. But you are distorting what the paragraph says. Read the context. What Wood is saying is "What is a Genome? It is something worth studying, no question. But is the Genome going to explain the real differences? No. There are differences which have to be accounted for by means OTHER THAN Genome studies."
Remember, that I and apparently Wood view the Bible as a SOURCE FOR PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES. I also believe in Biblical inerrancy. But this is a separate issue which must be proven on its own merits. Biblical inerrancy has nothing to do with the issue you just raised.
Norm said ...
Quote
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.
There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.
This is an amazing statement to me. Do most of you guys really believe this?
---------------------
I said ...
Quote
That's not what I am saying. I am saying if a pygmy or some LIVING HUMAN that is not the same size or shape as the mean average of all humans, could not the fossil it made be virtually indistinguishable from the supposed human ancestor fossils found at Talk Origins.
I'm saying that if certain LIVING HUMANS and LIVING APES died, we might easily have the same fossil situation that we currently do have. Is this not correct?
Oops. Let's try that again ...
That's not what I am saying. I am saying if a pygmy or some LIVING HUMAN that is not the same size or shape as the mean average of all humans DIED, could not the fossil it made be virtually indistinguishable from the supposed human ancestor fossils found at Talk Origins??
I'm saying that if certain LIVING HUMANS and LIVING APES died, we might easily have the same fossil situation that we currently do have. Is this not correct?
-------------------------------------------
Norm said ...
Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving
Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.
They speculate that if the human species continues to survive, the human brain may continue to evolve, driven by the pressures of natural selection. Their data suggest that major variants in these genes arose at roughly the same times as the origin of culture in human populations as well as the advent of agriculture and written language.
and he also said this ...
Quote
You seem to think that human intelligence is some sort of goal in evolution. It's not. There is no goal except for an organism's instinct to survive and reproduce itself. Brains won't be of use to all. ... and ... The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii. They go through more generations and mutations in shorter time periods.
There is no such thing as "less evolved" or "more evolved" in the context you want to use them. There is only more fit or less fit to the niche you find yourself living in.
These seem to be contradictory statements to me. On the one hand you seem to be saying that the brain is evolving (I assume this means humans are getting smarter), then on the other hand you say that bacteria are the most 'evolved' 
Let me just explain that MY conception is this:
MORE EVOLVED=More Intelligent and More Abilities. For example, apes can walk, climb, eat, drink, sleep, communicate in a limited way, etc. Humans can of course do all these things and much more including blow all the rest of life on Planet Earth to smithereens. This is what I'M talking about.
If you want me to use a new term so I don't confuse your minds, please suggest one.
------------------------------------------------------
Quote
How about you go get a high-school biology textbook and shut up for a while.
PLEASE go get some education (not from Answers in Genesis) and come back in 6-12 months.
Out of answers and energy, perhaps? I'm starting to make sense and you are frustrated? Maybe evolutionary explanations are not so great as they once seemed to you? But you still want to hang onto them because you have your life invested in them?
Hmmmm ....
------------------------------------------
Quote
More Koko news.
I acknowledged up front that apes have communication ability and even some of the other abilities mentioned here. This does not overcome the ENORMOUS differences between Apes and Humans. The BEST explanation remains, as it did before Darwin, that an Intelligent Designer made Humans to be Humans and Apes to be Apes.
Quote
Oh, look. The evidence shows that the differences between the various races are negligible, and that their abilities are essentially identical. Huh. I guess that makes it an instance of "Things are not always what you expect."
My point exactly. Things ARE NOT as one would expect if evolution were true.
Quote
It is your next line ...that the reality-based people here will take issue with. 'All the evidence that I have seen so far is explained in a much better way by the Biblical assertion that mankind was made "in the image of God."'
Why? What is wrong with proposing this as a hypothesis and testing it? This is what am doing on my other thread (well into Point 1 already). If the evidence fails to support it, then fine. I will abandon the proposition.
You should not be calling people here 'reality based.' Because many of them refuse to consider the possibility of what may in fact be quite legitimate REALITIES -- God, angels, demons, afterlife, etc. I will be showing excellent evidence for just these types of realities on my other thread. I cannot prove them, but there is much evidence. A better term for the people here might be 'naturalistic based.' In other words, they only acknowledge things they can test with their meters and such. They think that there is no 'God-meter' so to speak, so they reject the possibility out of hand. I will show that this is a mistake.
Quote
What I wanted to ask you was what are we suppose to make of the non-gaps(I don't know what else to call a non-gap, maybe evidence woudl be a good name, but if anyone has an idea please do tell) in the fossil evidence? You know, the places that make all those gaps the creationists complain about possible. All that evidence has to mean something. Especially since the evidence between the gaps shows such flow(again a bad word but the only one I could think of) between features and anytime a new piece of evidence is found it fits into the flow just as we would expect it to. Focusing only on the gaps gives the lopsided picture that the gaps are all that is important, but as I said above without the evidence there would be no gaps; or, rephrased, all of prehistory would would be one giant gap. And if creationism was true(especially YEC) that is all we would expect. One giant gap. Why can't creationists get that?
I will cover this on my other thread. Keep checking back. Thanks for the question.
Quote
(Arden)Ah yes, where would creationists be without comparisons of Hitler and Darwin? And where would they be with AIG? (Didn't use AIG this time ... are you happy?) Okay, Dave try answering this.
Adolf Hitler was a Christian. Catholic, in fact. The great majority of Nazis were Christians of some kind. Hitler frequently rationalized his attitudes towards 'racial purity' by appeals to Jesus and God. From this, one could conclude that a natural consequence of Christianity is murdering Jews. You presumably disagree. So do I. But why is this any less reasonable than your logic? It's FAR EASIER to find statements by the Nazis invoking Jesus for what they did than invoking Darwin.
(Joe the Ordinary Guy) Sure he [Hitler] was. But, as above, I think most people would describe him as “wrong”; he MISINTERPRETED evolutionary theory and arrived at bad conclusions. Wasn’t he also a Christian? Would you say he followed Christian precepts correctly?
I might concede this point. It is true that various twisted versions of Christianity has wreaked enormous havoc on the human race, the medieval Catholic Church being a case in point, in my opinion. But history also has a very recent example of a nation which based its laws upon the general Protestant interpretation of Christianity (the USA)--there is a very strong case that this is true--it should be self-evident, but may not be now thanks to post-1950 (or so) revisionists of American history. America (and the British Empire before it) owes its success more than anything else to the Bible and to the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth. And by "success", I mean equality, prosperity, culture, conveniences, art, music, good treatment of women and children, etc. Note that people from all over the world want to come to America. I cannot help but think that the story of Great Britain and America would have been quite different (maybe like the USSR?) had they been founded upon Darwinism instead of upon the Bible and the teachings of Jesus. Do you disagree with this?
To me, basing society upon the Bible and the teachings of Jesus has been demonstrated to be a good idea, whether they happen to be true or not. And basing a society upon Darwinism would be a bad idea, whether it is true or not. But I believe I have a "double whammy" if you will. Not only do I believe Darwinism is unsupported by adequate evidence AND has bad societal influences, but I also believe that Biblical Christianity and YEC is supported by overwhelming evidence AND is good for society.
This explains my zeal in fighting AGAINST Darwinism and FOR Biblical Christianity and Creationism.
Quote
Evolutionary theory does not provide any support for the arguments you try to make. These are issues for society, not science, to resolve.
True, and I am not an official member of the science community, but policy makers rely on what they think is good science many times to make good decisions. I am a concerned citizen with a scientific mind who feels that a pseudo-science called Neo-Darwinism is being called science on a large scale. This gives politicians scientific sounding reasons to implement potentially disastrous policies in our society.
Quote
Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born.
Twisted Christianity had been. You are correct. It got so bad that a man named Martin Luther turned things upside down. The result? The translation of the Bible into the English language and the attendant success of the British Empire, followed by the founding of the United States squarely upon the Bible also, again with great results. Note also the DECLINE of the British Empire coincident with the REJECTION of the validity and authority of the Bible.
Quote
Tell us what to do, now, Dave. Obviously we have to start from scratch. I mean, I assume I have to get one of those Jesus fish eating a Darwin fish for my car, and vote Republican this fall, but aside from that, I'm at a loss.
No one will make you do any of those things. That's the beauty of America. We let people be Atheist or Islamic or Buddhist or Nothing with no penalties. And the reason for this is the Christian worldview which is unique in the world in that it allows maximum freedom.
What we DO want is to NOT have our Creationist views ridiculed in the public square, and we want school children to hear both sides of the evidence (whether in ID format or Creo format, I don't care). I hear this is starting to happen in the UK and I think this is great!
---------------------------------------------------------------
Quote
Since you seem to have abandoned the previous thread, I'll repost my simple, unanswered question here:
Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes offensive?
If it does indeed turn out to be false when I have finished my investigation into the claim, then YES, I would be offended at the idea of teaching it as if it were true.
I will resume posts on my other thread tomorrow morning. I was not avoiding yours or anyone's questions over there.
----------------------------------------------------
Quote
To #### with it all -- let's play Hitler ping-pong!
We are getting off on rabbit trails. I said I would concede the Hitler point.
Let me put us back on the main track.
The BOTTOM, BOTTOM, BOTTOM line for me is this, guys.
None of this discussion here changes the simple FACT that ...
(a) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF HUMANS EVOLVED FROM APE-LIKE ANCESTORS, AND I'M NOT SURE WE EVER WILL.
and ...
(b) WE REALLY DON'T KNOW FOR SURE IF "GODDIDIT" AND WE CERTAINLY CAN'T "PROVE" THAT.
OK?
Now ... my BIG problem is this ...
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT? This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons. What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES--DESIGN and NO DESIGN and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to YOU and YOUR PARENTS to decide. My tax dollars are funding this education system just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction. Why is my opinion shut out and vilified? Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not? Last time I checked IT WAS.
And that ... my friends ... is the BOTTOM LINE on this thread.
--------------------------
Let me just put to rest all the talk about "More Evolved=More Abilities, etc." ...
When comparing Apes and Humans (which is the topic of this thread), I am simply saying this ... Humans Have More Abilities than Apes
Let's just forget about the bacteria and the rest until another day ...
OK? Everybody happy now?
Also, this type of thing from Aftershave ...
Quote
Let's use AFDave "logic", shall we?
Those evil Nazis used their knowledge of chemistry to produce high explosives and poisonous gas, so therefore the Atomic Theory of Chemistry must be scientifically wrong!
Worse than that, those evil Nazis used their knowledge of physics and gravity to aim and drop their bombs, so therefore Newtonian physics and the Theory of Gravity must be scientifically wrong!
How can we teach such blasphemy as chemistry and physics to our children???
Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved". Any bets?
is a sure indicator that this person has nothing left to say that is substantive ...
this does not help the image of evolution promoters ...
the YECs on the other hand thank you for ranting so ...
Could you maybe do some more? Maybe go tell 4 friends to show up and insult me too ... then you would be 5 times as effective :-)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well ... one thing is sure ... most of you are answering me precisely as I expected you to answer ...
We'll see you guys tomorrow for some more fun ... :-)
---------------------
Good morning everyone!
I hope everyone has had an excellent night's sleep so your mind is clear and your wits are sharp! The remaining half of my brain that's not "religion darkened" feels pretty good, so I'm ready to go at it again hammer and tongs!
It was a fun day for me yesterday ... I learned some really interesting things, and my wife and I got some great laughs from some of the creative answers you gave.
I do see that some of my "Chief Insult Hurlers" have abandoned that tactic apparently because they found it ineffective for their cause. We'll see how long it takes ALL the Insult Hurlers to figure this out. (You know ... some are more "highly evolved" than others, so it takes a while with some ... just kidding, JUST KIDDING! :-) )
NOTEWORTHY HIGHLIGHTS FROM YESTERDAY'S SKIRMISHES
Tom Ames runs for cover when the "B WORD" is mentioned ...
Quote
What is a Genome? This might seem like a trivial and self-evident question, but its simplicity hides a deep challenge (Wood 2001). The Bible (RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!! ALL PERSONNEL TAKE COVER IMMEDIATELY!! THE DEPLORABLE WORD HAS BEEN SPOKEN! teaches that God created adult organisms and presumably even complete ecosystems by covering the land with plants. Thus, the Bible (RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!! favors a holistic perspective of organisms. Modern molecular biology has favored the opposite perspective: that life is the complicated interaction of molecules and that DNA is the “code of life.” If the molecular viewpoint is correct, then the differences between organisms that really matter are indeed the differences in the DNA. If a holistic perspective is correct, then perhaps differences in the DNA are not paramount to understanding organismal differences.Complicating this reasoning is the fact that differences in DNA do indeed cause differences at the organismal level. There is a definite relationship between phenotype and genotype, even though the relationship is not as simple as Mendel might have imagined it. We could understand the genome as a repository of some of the information necessary for the physical composition of the organism (Wood 2001). In that case, far more important than the genome may be its cellular context, which interprets and applies the information stored in the genome. Since some of the cellular context is coded by the genome, we have something of a chicken/egg problem, which can only be resolved by a creation event.The similarity of the human and chimpanzee genomes offers evidence that the genome could primarily be a repository. If the fixed nucleotide mismatches between the chimpanzee and human genomes are 1.06%, then the original nucleotide identity could be as high as 99%. At that high level of similarity, perhaps it is not impossible to believe that God created humans and chimpanzees with identical genomes. The known differences between human and chimpanzee biochemistry (see Varki 2000; Varki and Atheide 2005) may well rule this out, but it is an intriguing possibility. Even at 99% identity, however, the biological and behavioral differences between chimpanzees and humans indicate that the source of these differences is not likely to be found entirely in the genome sequences. Theologically, the high similarity of humans and chimpanzees reinforces our spiritual – not physical (Ecc. 3:18-21) (RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!! – distinctiveness from the animals. It is the image of God (RED ALERT!! RED ALERT!! THE OTHER DEPLORABLE WORD HAS BEEN SPOKEN! that makes us human not some intrinsically valuable genetic element.(p.12)
NOTE: Let me emphasize again that for YECs showing evidence of YEC Theory, the Bible is a SOURCE FOR HYPOTHESES. Belief in Biblical inerrancy IS NOT required in this discussion. This is a SEPARATE ISSUE and stands or falls on its own merits.
Quote
The most evolved life forms on our planet are probably bacteria and virii.
I just LOVE this one! My kids got a great laugh too. I quickly learned yesterday that I am not up to date on the latest version of THE GREAT MYTH, so I thank all of you for fixing that. You'll have to pardon me for making this mistake. When I was in grade school, I remember all the encyclopedias showing Evolution going something like AMOEBAS - WORMS - SQUIDS - FISH - AMPHIBIANS - MAMMALS - APES - HUMANS (did I get that right?), with humans at the top of the tree. Anyway, I remember seeing a nice little Ape to Human progression and I remember quotes from Huxley and the like saying things about whites being "more evolved" than humans. I guess it stands to reason that ND Theory would have to change as racism became less fashionable worldwide throughout the 20th Century. And I do apologize for not keeping up on the latest version of THE GREAT MYTH. The Bible (My "myth" as you call it) says the same thing THIS century as it did in Darwin's day, so it's easier to keep up with than YOUR MYTH.
Quote
Human Brain Is Still Evolving: Howard Hughes Medical Institute researchers who have analyzed sequence variations in two genes that regulate brain size in human populations have found evidence that the human brain is still evolving.
And why shouldn't it be if evolution is true? It seems that the ToE would actually PREDICT continual brain sophistication (oops ... there's one of those evil "directional" words) ... er, shall we say, er ... I'm at a loss ... anyway ... ToE should predict continual brain sophistication so that at some point there may actually be some kind of Super Homo Sapiens species who might be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, play 100 simultaneous chess games, memorize large books in minutes, etc, etc.
Quote
Why should Common Descent produce “Hominid Civilizations”? There’s no reason to assume that this would be the case.
Actually, there is EVERY reason to believe this should be the case if the ToE is true.
Quote
After Darwin, a new possibility was raised: that those at the top of the social pyramid deserved to be there for natural reasons rather than religious reasons. There has never been ANY doubt by those at the top that their position is deserved. So these "natural" justifications have been deployed both by nations (as in Germany) and by scientists (searching for natural explanations for why the French are superior to the Germans or vice versa (depending on who's doing the study), or why whites are superior to blacks (again depending on who's doing the study). In brief, it fell out of fashion for those born into privilege to say God put them there, and into fashion to say they are "more evolved" and rose to the top from sheer innate superiority.
Quote
The anti-semitic attitudes that allowed for various attrocities - including the Holocaust - came directly from Christianity. The notion that Hitler just came up with the idea of killing off jews all on his own is simply absurd. Christians had been discriminating against and killing jews for well over a thousand years before Hitler was born. Hitler was just continuing a popular tradition, and adding his own spin to the process.
You need to remove the word 'Christianity' from this one and insert 'Catholicism' instead. The two are vastly different as I will show on a future "Martin Luther" post. That one should be fun!
Quote
How can you hope to find any flaws in something of which you have no understanding?
My 1st grader can easily grasp the truth that Apes are Apes and Humans are Humans and that they probably HAVE ALWAYS BEEN just that, and probably WILL ALWAYS BE just that. It doesn't take very much understanding of biology. The reason you don't grasp this is beyond me. Maybe too much ToE indocrination in higher education?
Quote
But you come in with arrogance and attitude on top of that. You don't show any respect for the opinions of people who do know things.
I'll give you that one. I did come in kind of cocky on the chimp chromo thing and you are right ... I should not be cocky, but I did show respect for people's opinions when they showed me the truth. I have always said I would ... and I did. You got me on that one, and now I agree with you that it does in fact appear that this supports ToE. So basically now you are "one bucket full" of water closer to draining the ocean. You should feel justifiably proud.
Quote
If creationism offered some explanations of the otherwise unexplained, if it made any predictions at all that worked, I still have my life and my work. It wouldn't cost me a thing to adopt it. If it worked. But it doesn't.
Stay with me. I will be resuming my work on my "Creator God Hypothesis" thread and I hope for your sake that it makes sense to you. The world is truly a fun place when you have the right view of it!
Quote
Now, let's talk about what you have invested in creationism. Suppose we were able to convince you that AiG is just as obviously, glaringly, unambiguously wrong about everything else as I hope you have come to realize they are about the chromosome fusion story. Suppose you had to accept what every scientist who's looked at the evidence objectively accepts: that the earth is billions of years old, and that humans are just one little twig on the tree of life, that has been on the scene for but an infinitesimal fraction of the planet's history. Would that make you reassess your thoughts on life and your alleged god?
Sure. I'd probably think there ISN'T a God. And yes, I would be disappointed. I admit that I LIKE the idea of there being one. But I don't think I am necessarily jaded by this. I think everyone's thinking is affected somewhat by their "wanters", but we have to keep this "wanter" under control. "Evos", like "Creos" also have "wanters" and many of them DON'T WANT there to be a God because they think their life would somehow be worse, or they'd have to tie half their brain behind their back, or some such thing.
Quote
What does this (Hitler) have to do with the biologically history of the planet Earth?
Simply this. If you compare the two "World Views" you have something like the following major points:
DARWINISM:
Survival of the fittest
Humans are animals-nothing more
No God required-I'm not accountable to anyone but myself
CHRISTIANITY (American Protestantism specifically):
God created mankind in His image
All humans are created equal
Don't kill, don't steal, etc.
Treat others as you would have them treat you
Love one another
Turn the other cheek
Bless your enemies
If your enemy is thirsty, give him a drink
Do not repay evil for evil
Now ... which of these is more conducive to a Holocaust? You tell me. I'm not discounting other factors. It's true that Hitler was influenced by Catholicism, the Occult, and other factors as well. So my point is ...
NOT ONLY IS DARWINISM FALSE AND AN INSULT TO INTELLIGENCE ... demonstrably so as we saw for many years with Henry Morris and Co. and are now seeing with Dembski, Denton, Behe, etc.
BUT IT IS ALSO AN BAD FOUNDATION UPON WHICH TO BUILD A NATION.
I don't know of a single one that was built on the Principles listed above under "Darwinism" that I would want to live in. Do you?
In stark contrast to that, we have at least TWO examples of nations who built their laws squarely upon the CHRISTIANITY principles listed above: Great Britain and the USA.
Now you see what gives me such zeal in fighting Darwinism.
Again, so no one misses it ... the two reasons I fight Darwinism are ...
(A) IT IS FALSE
(B) IT IS HARMFUL TO SOCIETY
Are there any questions? Is my position perfectly clear?
By the way, for those of you wise enough to "get off the Darwin train" BEFORE the train wreck, your buddy Bill Dembski has come up with a neat list of over 500 scientists who have had the kahoonas to sign their names to a public statement that says ...
Quote
A Scientific Dissent From Darwinism
"We are skeptical of claims for the ability of random mutation and natural selection to account for the complexity of life. Careful examination of the evidence for Darwinian theory should be encouraged."
It also notes that ...
Quote
The scientists on this list dispute the first claim and stand as living testimony in contradiction to the second. Since Discovery Institute launched this list in 2001 [in response to the PBS "Evolution" propaganda piece] over 500 scientists have courageously stepped forward to sign their names. The list is growing and includes scientists from the US National Academy of Sciences, Russian, Polish and Czech National Academies, as well as from universities such as Yale, Princeton, Stanford, MIT, UC Berkeley, UCLA, and others.
Here's the link ... [url="http://www.dissentfromdarwin.org"]
(What? We have rebels in the Ivy League too? Heaven help us! er ... Deep space help us! (?) ... er ... May the Force help us! ... er ... well ... anyway, SOMEONE help us!
THOUGHT QUESTION FOR THE DAY: If over 500 scientists have actually had the kahoonas to SIGN such a document, how many others AGREE with the document, but are AFRAID to sign it because of peer pressure, fear of not getting tenured, etc., etc.
Hmmmm ....
Quote
so afdave, have you confronted AIG about the lies on their site as you said you were going to do yet?
Patience, my friend. These things take time. AIG is so popular right now that they get ZILLIONS of questions every day and it takes time to get to mine. Actually, I think the only way I will get an answer in any reasonable amount of time will be if I use my connections. But I don't even know for sure if that will work quickly. Stay tuned, though.
Quote
The problem is not that chimps, and the animal kingdom in general, is so far behind. It is that you are so completely unknowing of just how capable chimps really are and that you are full of species superiority about how far advanced humans really are.
Yes. Maybe we should take this up in Congress and maybe come up with an "Ape Bill of Rights." Good idea. I'll take this one with me on my next trip to Washington. Oh ... and maybe we could have an "Ape Olympics" and make it a world class event ... and maybe we should modify laws to allow Apes free access to various public places like Walmart and the Public Library, etc. Excellent idea. I like your progressiveness.
Quote
Dave, the reason people are becoming frustrated with you is because most of the questions you have, which you seem to view as huge problems for evolutionary biology, are in fact a result of your limited understanding of evolutionary biology.
I have an alternative explanation for the frustration (imagine that! Mine is like this ...
STAGE 1: ToE advocates are becoming frustrated because their explanations are sounding more and more like pro-geocentrism and pro-flat-earth arguments as time goes on.
STAGE 2: The Ship of Darwin has hit an iceberg and a few brave souls are jumping into life boats before it sinks. See www.dissentfromdarwin.org
STAGE 3: And now, ordinary amateur scientists like me are jumping in the fray and shining a light on a foolish theory.
STAGE 4: Frustration ensues, followed by name calling, arrogant and belittling comments, talk of censorship, and the like.
STAGE 5: This is turn fuels more doubts in people minds. ("Why would that guy resort to name calling? Doesn't he have any GOODS?" etc.)
STAGE 6: Which in turn fuels more frustration and mental anguish. And so the cycle goes until finally for some ... in a desperate moment ... possibly in the middle of the night ... or out on a peaceful lake while fishing ...
STAGE 7: THE LIGHT BULB COMES ON! (Trumpets) And one more Darwinist is rescued from the darkness of error.
Quote
How do you test for God?
With a God Meter of course. No. Seriously, there are some very good ways. Cosmic fine tuning and Biological Machines are great for starters. And if I could get everyone on this thread to agree with me, I could hop back over to that thread (AF Dave's UPDATED Creator God Hypothesis) and give you more. Lots more. Stay with me. We'll get there.
Quote
Let's say someone drops AFDave into the middle of the Pacific with no raft, into a pack of sharks, to see which is "more evolved". Any bets?
Aftershave ... you're in STAGE 4. See above. (Which means there's hope for you)
Quote
Why is my opinion shut out and vilified?
That's an easy one. Because your ideas are not within the mainstream of scientific understanding today. It's that simple.
Yes. Galileo's ideas were not mainstream either. Right.
Quote
Why do you ignore the fact that the chimp/human DNA thing is a PRETTY DURN BIG piece of evidence in favor of evolution, especially since it is the proof of predictions made before people even knew there was such a thing as DNA?
I don't ignore it. In fact I've acknowledged it several times to prove my sense of fairness and honesty. Go read the whole "Chimp Chromo" thread and you will see this. I'm trying to set a good example for how someone should act when they are proven wrong on a point as I was.
And here it would be appropriate for me to repeat what I told Steve Story ... that with your "Chimp Chromo" victory ...
... you are "one bucket full" of water closer to draining the ocean. You should feel justifiably proud.
Quote
AFDave, since you refer to 'more evolved' humans, do you admit that we are the result of some evolution?
No. I do not believe there is such a thing as 'more evolved' humans. I just asked our ToE advocates why there ARE NO EXAMPLES of 'more evolved' or 'less evolved' humans. There should be some living today if ToE is true.
Quote
For the umpteenth time – science is NOT a democracy, and scientific truth is NOT decided by popular vote. Your opinion based on ignorance doesn’t mean jack sh*t to the scientific realities of the evidence. Dave, for an otherwise intelligent guy, you’re sure doing a good impersonation of a cement-headed dumbf*ck.
Not just STAGE 4. SERIOUS, "E.R." STAGE 4. See above.
Quote
We're teaching kids that this is science's best guess and its as factual as this kind of science ever gets.
There are apparently more and more scientists who have a DIFFERENT guess. But let's not consider their guess. They are obviously 'unscientific.'
Quote
Looking at human society, behaviour, anatomy, physiology and genetics, our close evolutionary relationship to the great apes is obvious. Remember the vitC gene?
No disagreement with any of this. I just think it indicates COMMON DESIGN, not common descent. Not a looney, fringe idea. Should be taught in school too. I'm in good company ... Newton for one. Apparently thousands of currently living scientists as well in all major universities.
Quote
But you have demonstrated here that you are not really competent to judge.
Agreed. That's why I enlist the help of Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe, etc. etc.
Quote
And of course, evidence doesn't matter. But in the world of science, evidence DOES matter.
Evidence DOES matter. That's why we are having this discussion. Because the EVIDENCE favors COMMON DESIGN, not common descent.
Quote
But what we are discussing here is science, and science is NOT a democracy.
Quite true. Science is not a democracy. We have to go with the evidence. But politicians are elected by majority. And politicians give funding to public schools and universities. And if universities behave irresponsibly and teach junk science -- like Darwinism -- and vilify people who don't, then the electorate can demand that the politicians RE-direct the funds to responsible schools.
Quote
afdave, if you need retarded "science" (your idiotic AIG approved "science") to justify your faith in god you were in a world of hurt long before you came to this web site.
I think you must not yet know WHY I came to this website.
Quote
To trot out an over used but apt comparrison. A recent poll came out that said barely 1/3 of questioned people could locate Iraq on a map. Does that mean that:
1) We should improve geographic education to make sure that Americans are more aware of the world around them or
2) We should "teach the controversy" and show both sides of the issue, both those people who believe Iraq is in the middle east, and those people who pointed at Australia and said "I think it's around here somewhere".
Your analogy works if you assume that "Teaching Darwinism = Teaching that Iraq is Somewhere near the North Pole", which I of course do believe is a good equation. And in this case, YES, I would advocate (2).
Quote
Why are we standing up in science classes and teaching kids that Ape to Human Evolution is a FACT? Because we teach them that gravity makes apples fall.
Jeannot, Jeannot. Come now. Look what you just did. You compared something with ABUNDANT EVIDENCE THAT WE SEE EVERY DAY (Gravity), with something for which there is NO EVIDENCE OF IT OCCURRING (Apelike ancestor becoming Human). Or do you see this occurring in France? (I can think of a joke about the REVERSE occurring, but I will be nice and refrain. Besides, I liked Lafayette.) I was beginning to be impressed with your grasp of science (the DNA replication info). How could you make this basic error?
Quote
Speaking of which, how are you doing with supporting your three assertions? Eric is referring to these ...
1. The Bible is literally inerrant;
2. The earth is not billions of years old, but only thousands of years old; and
3. Evolution cannot explain the origin of species.
FIRST, these are not assertions that I made in my Creator God Hypothesis although I heartily agree with them all and they all have mountains of evidence to support them which I hope we can get into. The reason I did not make them in my Hypothesis is that there are more important things to show evidence for first. It is most important that I BEGIN with the PHYSICAL EVIDENCE ... namely, the Cosmos and the Living World around us. This evidence includes Cosmic Fine Tuning, Biological Machines and Relativity. Next we should observe Humanity and Moral Laws which in fact are REAL THINGS, although we cannot "see" them. From this evidence we can postulate a Cause for all these phenomena. There are other phenomena we can observe to get a better and better description of what this Cause might be like. If we can establish a pretty good case for the existence of a Great First Cause, then we are not unreasonable to postulate than maybe He gave us a written message. We posulate the Bible as a possible candidate for THE MESSAGE OF GOD TO MANKIND because of its uniqueness and seemingly supernatural character, then test our theory in detail. If this theory is well supported from things easily verifiable, we can now move on and investigate various claims of the Bible such as the Flood, Young Earth, the Changing of Languages at Babel, etc. which are disputed widely today. This is the general outline I am following. Again, remember that I have never before published a "God Hypothesis" ... I am proposing one and working out the exact details of how it should go with YOUR HELP! Thank you! As for proving Evolution to be false, this is not my priority, as some others are doing a good job of that. Henry Morris, Michael Denton and Michael Behe, to name a few. Denton was more polite than I would have been in titling his book. Instead of "Evolution: A Theory in Crisis", I would have named it "Evolution: Impending Train Wreck."
NOTE: Let me emphasize again that for YECs showing evidence of YEC Theory, the Bible is a SOURCE FOR PLAUSIBLE HYPOTHESES, nothing more. Belief in Biblical inerrancy IS NOT required in this discussion. This is a SEPARATE ISSUE and stands or falls on its own merits.
Quote
But can you get it through the front door of that meritocracy honestly?
Yes. This is happening as we speak.
Quote
No doubt my teaching about common ancestry (especially regarding humans and apes) makes you feel uncomfortable, since you deny the starting premise.
Again, I am perfectly comfortable teaching things THAT ARE TRUE. What I am uncomfortable with is ASSERTING things AS IF they were proven, when in fact they are not, by YOUR OWN STANDARDS.
Quote
"More evolved" is a difficult term and issue. However, I don't think that it is truly meaningless in biology, nor that it would necessarily apply to the highly successful micro-organisms better than to multi-celled eukaryotes.
Glen ... I enjoyed reading your entire piece. Very insightful. Thanks!
Quote
AFDave, it seems that the history of Christianity is another thing that you could learn more about. Next time you are researching, Google "Martin Luther" and anti-semitism. Read his actual writings. With regard to your claims about history, I will just observe that correlation is not causation.
I'm sure I would agree with you. But this has nothing to do with my point. Go back and read my point again. We'll do another thread an ML. He's one of my favorites. But not now. I have alot on my plate :-)
Quote
Indeed, Dave should not start thinking that all the Christians who mistreated Jews were all Catholics, and that Protestants all treated them well. Many high ranking Nazis were Protestants as well. Here's what Wikipedia says about Luther:
Agreed. It was Protestants who burned William Tyndale at the stake. You are absolutely right. But this does not change the fact of history that the Protestant Reformation changed the world for the better.
Quote
Add American history to the list of subjects AFDave knows less about than he thinks.
Oh? I'll take you up on the challenge sometime. That will be fun too!
Quote
There are some rules here at ATBC, and I predict you won't persist in babbling your nonsense any longer.
Jeannot, have you never heard of a nifty little thing made famous by Americans called FREEDOM OF SPEECH? Do you not have this in France?
BTW ... I salute Steve and Wes for honoring Free Speech! You have my accolades.
Quote
Offer a "theological biology" class.....
The Darwinist Religious belief on Origins would be PERFECT for this class.
Quote
Exactly Paul. Individuals of our species get a HUGE leg up on our planet by being immersed in the current incarnation of human culture of whatever location they happen to be born. Where would they be if they were born into the wild and cared for by animals, or by parents that had no concept of language, and if they had no contact with anything manmade? That recent thread that touched on the subject of feral children leads me to think that they wouldn't fare very well. The extremely rare child that is raised by animals imprints upon their adoptive parents, crawling like dogs, or imitating chickens. We spend years with our families and in schools learning just the basics about the world and how to interact with it.
Seeing the capabilies of Koko, given the advantage of being taught an already established, open ended language that promotes structured thought, leaves me quite awestruck at how smart and similar to us gorillas are. Whoever said that these ape societies are the 'Hominid Civilizations' afdave is looking for is right. It just goes to show what a good ecological niche it is that we used to share. There's plenty of room in the jungle for apes.
I agree. All the apes need is a good environment and they will become rocket scientists. When I am in Washington next, I will suggest to Ike Skelton that he introduce legislation for a new, tax-funded, "Primate Education Program." Maybe we could even have a new cabinet level office ... we already have the Department of Education ... why not have the Department of Ape Education.
Quote
Is every aspiring AF pilot guaranteed to get his wings and then be allowed to fly fighter jets? Or is there a winnowing out process so that only those who have passed a battery of rigorous tests will be deemed qualified?
And who gets to decide if an aspiring pilot has the right skills and attributes to fly F-22s instead of tankers or trainers, or gets to fly at all? Is it AF cooks, and drivers, and mechanics? Or is the judgment made by a group of senior pilots who have themselves put in the years learning the trade, and know what separates the real aviators from the wanna-be ones?
I think we should give wings and assign fighter duty to everyone who applies.
Why are we standing up in the Air Force Academy and teaching that some people make better pilots than others is a FACT? This is dishonest and potentially damaging to society for any number of debatable reasons. What we SHOULD be doing is telling them BOTH THEORIES—ONLY A FEW PEOPLE MAKE SUPERIOR PILOTS and ALL POTENTIAL PILOTS ARE EQUALLY CAPABLE and clearly let them know they are UNPROVEN THEORIES and it is up to EACH PILOT HIMSELF and HIS PARENTS to decide if he is qualified. My tax dollars are funding the military budget for F-22’s, etc. just like yours are and I have a different opinion on something that is an unprovable fact in either direction. Why is my opinion shut out and vilified? Is this country supposed to be a representative democracy or is it not? Last time I checked IT WAS. You do believe in the democratic process, don’t you Dave? Shouldn’t it be applied here too? I’m really curious to hear your answers.
Good question. I knew you could say something substantive. Answer: The generals who set the rules EARNED THE RIGHT to do so by exercising sound judgment regarding EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTHS. What is this EASILY VERIFIABLE TRUTH? It's very easy to distinguish the good pilot candidates from the bad ones. In science today, we are talking about a different matter. We are talking about many qualified students who can do much in the way of good, useful scientific work regardless of their worldview. To exclude people because of their worldview is like excluding people based on sex or religious preference, ESPECIALLY when there are thousands of "Darwin dissenters" among scinetists in all major universities AND half the US and British population rejects Darwinism. This is a significant difference. Contrast this with putting the following question on the next national ballot, "Do you think there should be a selection process in choosing fighter pilots?" I think you'd be very close to 100% YES.
Quote
Why would somebody be offended by having been taught something that was believed by scientists at the time, but that found out later to be incorrect?
No problem with teaching Evolution as a Theory espoused by many good scientists. Let's just be honest and call it a theory though and quit saying it is a proven fact and shutting out the ID view.
Quote
Now let's try this again. Do you or do you not find the very idea that humans are evolved apes (as are, for Flint's benefit, all present-day apes) offensive?
I'm perfectly fine with the idea if it turns out to be proven true.
Quote
I said ... Do we not have plenty of LIVING HUMANS which could correlate very nicely with some of these fossil finds, but which we now know are completely human?
Let me explain this one again, since it was misunderstood.
I am saying that if we took an assortment of recently (let's say they all died at once yesterday, OK?) dead African pygmies, maybe some dead dwarfs, some dead Aborigines, some dead gorillas, etc. (a morbid thought to be sure, but you get the idea ... we are collecting 'ape-like bones' ... but if we somehow collected all these bones, we could quite possibly bury fragments of them in various places throughout the world and have a 'hominid" fossil situation quite closely resembling the naturally occurring situation which we do have. Make sense? Now that you understand what I am saying, please ... go ahead and refute me. Who knows? Maybe you can.
MAIN POINTS I LEARNED YESTERDAY
(1) Humans are Humans
(2) Apes are Apes
(3) No one has observed Apelike ancestors becoming Humans in their lifetimes and no one ever will.
(4) Fossil evidence is dicey at best
(5) Genetic similarities are striking, but can just as easily be explained by Common Design (probably better when we really get into it) as by Common Descent
(6) Creos and Evos have strong and opposite opinions about something which cannot be proven because NO ONE CAN OBSERVE IT HAPPENING. Contrast this with Gravity, etc.
(7) Evos are the "rulers" in academia right now and they like to call the Creos "non-scientific"
(8) There's hope for academia in spite of this thanks to courageous people like Morris, Dembski, Meyer, Denton, Behe and apparently a growing number of good scientists (over 500 signatories so far on a Darwin Dissent Document)
I need to get back to my main Creator God Hypothesis today if I can. So do me a favor and just agree with me quickly so we can get on with it, would you? :-)
----------------------------------------
Quote
Dave, sometimes your understanding of evolution seems very cartoonish. I really, really think you should read a few good books on evolutionary topics aimed at a general readership.
Is there a better author than Dawkins for this type of book? I do read him some.
-------------------------------------
Quote
But here we are, a few days later, and now you're back to insisting that humans aren't even related to apes (despite the fact that humans are apes). Are we now going to have to assume that points you conceded a week ago are no longer conceded? Does this mean we're going to have to go over the same ground again and again with you, à la Thordaddy? Because that will get old very quickly.
No, no. We will not have to cover anything over again. I DO agree with all those things I said I agree with.
I agree that I need to explain more fully why I believe the similarities favor Common Design over Common Descent. I will try to address this soon.
Thanks
------------------------------------
Good morning to all my "Evo" friends ...
The Vitamin C issue with apes and humans seems to be a very compelling evidence for you that Apes and Humans do indeed share a common ancestor.
OK. Let's take a look. I assume everyone is familiar with the Talk Origins article my Dr. Edward Max here and the AIG article by Woodmorappe here, right?
Dr. Max begins with an analogy to a plagiarism case ...
Quote
One way to distinguish between copying and independent creation is suggested by analogy to the following two cases from the legal literature. In 1941 the author of a chemistry textbook brought suit charging that portions of his textbook had been plagiarized by the author of a competing textbook (Colonial Book Co, Inc. v. Amsco School Publications, Inc., 41 F. Supp.156 (S.D.N.Y. 1941), aff'd 142 F.2d 362 (2nd Cir. 1944)). In 1946 the publisher of a trade directory for the construction industry made similar charges against a competing directory publisher (Sub-Contractors Register, Inc. v McGovern's Contractors & Builders Manual, Inc. 69 F.Supp. 507, 509 (S.D.N.Y. 194 |
