Debunking these pro-evolution arguments.

[Sammy-San]

Some people say that humans and chimps having over 90% the same DNA is proof that we have a common ancestor. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

Also, according to this article from an anti-creationist site (Creationist Arguments: Neandertals), neanderthals were a different species from humans, and they could not have been humans with rickets. Here are their arguments as to why Nenderthals could not have been humans, as many creationists claim.

Rickets does not produce a Neandertal, or Homo erectus morphology; it is clear from many sources (Reader 1981; Tattersall 1995) that the original Neandertal skeleton was unlike any previously known, even in a century in which rickets was a common disease.
Evidence of rickets is easily detectable, especially on the growing ends of the long bones of the body. Radiology courses routinely teach the symptoms. It has never (so far as I know) been detected in Neandertals or Homo erectus.
Even Virchow did not claim rickets as a sole cause. Virchow in 1872 decided that the first Neandertal Man fossil had had rickets in childhood, head injuries in middle age, and chronic arthritis in old age. A whole population of such people strains credibility, to say the least, although Lubenow says that this diagnosis "is as valid today as when [Virchow] first made it".
The long bones of Neandertals, like those of rickets victims, are often more curved than normal, but rickets causes a sideways curvature of the femur, while Neandertal femurs curve backwards (Klein 1989).

I have studied the arguments that people make against evolution, but these two arguments in favor of evolution, I find very hard to debunk.

 

[Cappadocious]

Asking "how can I debunk this argument?" is the wrong way to approach any argument.

A better way would be to ask, "Is this argument valid? If so, do I object to any of the premises in this argument? If I do, are my objections correct?"

 

[pescador]

Asking "how can I debunk this argument?" is the wrong way to approach any argument.

A better way would be to ask, "Is this argument valid? If so, do I object to any of the premises in this argument? If I do, are my objections correct?"

Entirely correct! When I was in graduate school one of the best pieces of advice I ever heard was "Try to disprove your own hypothesis".

 

[AmericanChristian91]

If your interested about info on Neanderthals and learning more about them Superhero Sam, here you go.

Neanderthal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Sammy-San]

Asking "how can I debunk this argument?" is the wrong way to approach any argument.

A better way would be to ask, "Is this argument valid? If so, do I object to any of the premises in this argument? If I do, are my objections correct?"

The argument that neanderthals are a different species from humans is not valid, because it goes against what the bible says.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

The argument that neanderthals are a different species from humans is not valid, because it goes against what the bible says.

Well yes it goes against a extreme literal interpretation of the bible which paints the 1st humans ever as being modern humans (homosapiens) and no human like creature coming before.

Of course that does not mean it goes against the bible, just a certain interpretation of it.

 

[RobFranco]

The argument that neanderthals are a different species from humans is not valid, because it goes against what the bible says.

What does the bible say? That God almighty came down to this planet to spit on the ground and give shape to the man with his hands?? To later breathe in our nostrils so we may have life?? Sounds like a magic show to me. Not being disrespectful, I'm just questioning our beliefs. I do believe God created the heaven and the earth and all the animals including man. But not LITERALLY with his hands, but through billions of years (there's no such thing as time for God) of evolution **THE MOLDING HANDS OF GOD IS EVOLUTION**, a biological process of CREATION which science still doesn't understand completely.

 

[dysert]

Some people say that humans and chimps having over 90% the same DNA is proof that we have a common ancestor. Chimps, Humans 96 Percent the Same, Gene Study Finds

I know the whole DNA thing is more complicated than I can understand, but consider this. There are two identical Rolex watches. They have 100% the same material and working mechanisms. Would you conclude that these watches evolved from the same ancestor watch?

 

[Armoured]

The argument that neanderthals are a different species from humans is not valid, because it goes against what the bible says.

The Bible mentions Neandertaals now?

 

[miamited]

Hi superherosam,

One of, I believe, truths that a born again believer comes to realize as his walk with the Lord continues, is that mankind in general will always have good sounding arguments to deny God. Who He is and what He has done. People are generally logical thinkers and sadly their logic is based on the natural properties of this world. Paul warns the born again believer to not be deceived by such arguments. However, the very reason that Paul would warn us of such deceit, I believe, is because he knew how logically sounding they would be to our natural minds.

As to this issue of DNA, sure, it sounds perfectly logical that if we share so much DNA that we would come from such creatures. However, the truth, I believe, is that every living thing is made from a DNA foundation. Since men and apes are so alike in so many of their shared physical attributes, why wouldn't their DNA be greatly similar?

But I reject the answer that says that it is because we come from such creatures. I choose to believe that it is because God made each one separately that way. You can go through the entire animal kingdom and find many, many animals who share much similar DNA strands but there is always one little difference that makes this animal the way it is and the other the way it is. I choose to believe that it has nothing whatsoever to do with evolution, but rather God's divine and perfect wisdom in how He created living creatures.

However, those who choose to depend on the logical conclusions drawn from the natural properties of this world are going to choose some other reason. If they are deniers of God, then they are going to choose the evolutionary explanation and because the argument seems so 'right' to the logical natural mind, even many who claim to know the truth, will be deceived by these fine sounding and completely logical explanations.

This is why Paul issued his warning. He knew, just as he wrote to Timothy, that a time was coming that men would not put up with sound doctrine. He knew that men, even those among the believers, would be swayed by these logical arguments based on the natural properties of the world. God has clearly told us how and when He created this realm and we make the choice of our own wisdom to either believe it or not. God even warns us that the deceit is so very strong that if He didn't step in and cut short the days that such deception was running rampant upon the earth, that even the elect might have been deceived. That's how strong and logical the arguments are going to be.

I believe that our believing God is very important and I believe that because Paul issued these warnings to us that he also believed it was very important to the security of our faith. I believe that God's warning to us that even the elect might be deceived, that He does expect His children to know and understand the truth. Otherwise, one has to ask why Paul would have written these things. If it isn't an issue of any importance to God, then why does Paul warn us to not be deceived by such things? If it doesn't matter what we believe in these things, then why would he waste the ink? Why even discuss the subject and why call it deceit? Why wouldn't he just write to us that we should be careful what we believe, but it really isn't important whether or not we are deceived by arguments based on the natural properties of this world.

Finally, I suppose it ultimately boils down to one's full understanding of who God is and why He created this realm. I choose to believe that God created this realm - by that I mean the visible universe and all that is on the earth - for man. He didn't do it so that He could look out His big picture window and say to Himself, "Ooooo, look at all those stars and planets that I created." He created this realm for the express purpose of making a place where man could live. A creature that He was creating to be just like His angelic creatures in its ability to love and know Him. Because I believe that, then I also believe that He didn't take millions or billions of years to bring about the existence of man, but merely started by creating the earth and the heavens in seemingly mere moments to be.

He spoke, and the earth and light appeared. Covered in water and spinning in the limitless black emptiness of 'space'. He spoke, and each one of the successive foundations of this realm immediately came to be. However, He knew when He spoke the first words in creating this realm that He was building a home for a new creature to love and to know Him. To honor and to live with Him just as the angels do. He spoke and all the creatures of the earth became and once He had completed the building of this realm, He said, "Let us make man in our image."

The God I know and love did all this for me. He created the earth that I might have a place to set my feet and rest my head. He created the plants and animals that I might have food to eat. He created the atmosphere that I might have oxygen to breath and the plants might have the carbon dioxide that they needed that they might be sustained to sustain me. Jesus said to consider the birds of the air. They neither sow nor reap yet our heavenly Father feeds them. How does He feed them? He simply created and caused the properties of the creation to grow berries and seeds to feed the birds. Well, my Father has provided food and oxygen for me in the very same way that He made provision for the birds. He created and sustains what is needed for me to live.

However, He asks of me, unlike the birds of the air, that I know and love Him. That I understand why all of this food and oxygen is here for me. That I return to Him the glory and honor that He is due just because I live and exist by His hand. I exist because in six days God created this realm in which I live and breathe and eat.

God bless you.
In Christ, Ted

 

[classicalhero]

One of the best arguments against evolution is that we are mutating far too fast t have been around for the evolutionary ages assumed.
Contamination of the genome by very slightly de... [J Theor Biol. 1995] - PubMed - NCBI

It is well known that when s, the selection coefficient against a deleterious mutation, is below approximately 1/4Ne, where Ne is the effective population size, the expected frequency of this mutation is approximately 0.5, if forward and backward mutation rates are similar. Thus, if the genome size, G, in nucleotides substantially exceeds the Ne of the whole species, there is a dangerous range of selection coefficients, 1/G < s < 1/4Ne. Mutations with s within this range are neutral enough to accumulate almost freely, but are still deleterious enough to make an impact at the level of the whole genome. In many vertebrates Ne approximately 10(4), while G approximately 10(9), so that the dangerous range includes more than four orders of magnitude. If substitutions at 10% of all nucleotide sites have selection coefficients within this range with the mean 10(-6), an average individual carries approximately 100 lethal equivalents. Some data suggest that a substantial fraction of nucleotides typical to a species may, indeed, be suboptimal. When selection acts on different mutations independently, this implies too high a mutation load. This paradox cannot be resolved by invoking beneficial mutations or environmental fluctuations. Several possible resolutions are considered, including soft selection and synergistic epistasis among very slightly deleterious mutations.

 

[Alithis]

Yet that same God, of whom the Bible says that he's not the author of confusion seems to have also created a trail of evidence pointing to evolution and to a planet and universe that's billions of years old just for kicks.

He also said the wisdom of men is foolishness.
When he returns he will roll up the heavens like a scroll ....and every eye shall see him.

 

[Cappadocious]

The argument that neanderthals are a different species from humans is not valid, because it goes against what the bible says.

First off, that's not an argument. It's a premise.

And second, is the claim that neanderthals are different from humans, or different from Homo sapiens? Many refer to neanderthals as human, while admitting a difference between neanderthals and Homo sapiens.

 

[Rubiks]

Many creationists will simply try to say God used a similar blueprint for neanderthals compared too humans, thus explaining the 90-something percent similarity.

Its not my view however. For all i know, God could have used evolution, or he could have not.

 

[Gnarwhal]

I know the whole DNA thing is more complicated than I can understand, but consider this. There are two identical Rolex watches. They have 100% the same material and working mechanisms. Would you conclude that these watches evolved from the same ancestor watch?

That comparison comes up short though because you're trying to apply an organic process to inorganic objects.

 

[Sammy-San]

Many creationists will simply try to say God used a similar blueprint for neanderthals compared too humans, thus explaining the 90-something percent similarity.

Its not my view however. For all i know, God could have used evolution, or he could have not.

Someone from church told me that the word "days" in genesis, (i forgot which language it was in-Greek or hebrew), literally mean "days". If what he said was true and the literal interpretation of Genesis is true, then God couldn't have used evolution to create life. Theistic evolution is not bibical.

 

[Sammy-San]

First off, that's not an argument. It's a premise.

And second, is the claim that neanderthals are different from humans, or different from Homo sapiens? Many refer to neanderthals as human, while admitting a difference between neanderthals and Homo sapiens.

What's the difference between humans and homo sapiens?

 

[AmericanChristian91]

Someone from church told me that the word "days" in genesis, (i forgot which language it was in-Greek or hebrew), literally mean "days".

So? How is that being true discredit evolution?

I do think it is most likely that the days in Genesis, are referring to the kind of days we normally think of.

However that itself does not prove that the universe/earth were created in 7 24 hr days.

If the Genesis creation account is using 7 24hr days, the question you need to ask is why? Is the writer(s) of the genesis story using a 7 day formula for the amount of time used to create everything, because they are playing the role of a journalist and trying to be completely historically accurte to the past (like a journalist would try to do while writing an article in the newspaper about an event in the past)? Or are they using a 7 day formula for other reasons, and their main goal is not to be completely historically/scientifically accurate?

 

[AmericanChristian91]

What's the difference between humans and homo sapiens?

Humans are homo sapiens (also known as modern humans)

Homo sapiens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Though sometimes the word "human" can also refer to creatures that existed before the rise of homosapiens

(Archaic humans - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

but are still apart of our same genus.

(Homo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

 

[Sammy-San]

So? How is that being true discredit evolution?

I do think it is most likely that the days in Genesis, are referring to the kind of days we normally think of.

However that itself does not prove that the universe/earth were created in 7 24 hr days.

If the Genesis creation account is using 7 24hr days, the question you need to ask is why? Is the writer(s) of the genesis story using a 7 day formula for the amount of time used to create everything, because they are playing the role of a journalist and trying to be completely historically accurte to the past (like a journalist would try to do while writing an article in the newspaper about an event in the past)? Or are they using a 7 day formula for other reasons, and their main goal is not to be completely historically/scientifically accurate?

Because evolution cannot happen in a few days. evolution takes years.

Why would somebody inspired by the holy spirit not be historically/scientifically accurate? the writers of the bible were inspired by the holy spirit.