Open Questions Concerning Darwinism

[mark kennedy]

Why shouldn't papias us the term "apemen" (in inverted commas)? It is a term you keep using.

You have describes Homo habilis as a mythical apemen:

That's right, an ape passed off as a transitional hominid, aka apeman. It's apparent that I regard Homo hablilis as an ape and the 'apeman' as a myth.

You also describe Homo habilis as devolving into chimps:

That is what would have had to happen for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes. This is a references to cranial capacity and the timeline scenario of evolutionists. They claim it happened gradually over time but the fact is it would have had to happen suddenly about 2 mya with the emergence of Homo erectus where the cranial capacity would have had to double overnight. The Homo habilis skulls are well below the lower limit for hominids, that is unless you move the 'Cerebral Rubicon' back, thus moving the goal posts. Homo habilis is representative of apes who were about 5 foot tall with a cranial capacity just slightly larger then modern apes.

They did not evolve into humans, they got smaller which is the trend since the Deluge due to decreased longevity and scarcer resources. Papias hasn't got a clue what is going on in Paleontology and he is deeply confused about what the theological issues are here. Instead of helping him understand the issues your encouraging his misconceptions, a practice I believe to be malicious and shameful.

Papias was trolling, fallacious ad hominems, and you never said anything of the sort?

Exactly! What is more I have been crystal clear while he has twisted my words to mean something that never occurred to me. What is more he knows it and what is worse, you are encouraging him to continue this fallacious line of reasoning when you should be helping him understand.

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

Originally Posted by Papias

Mark, as you saw from your own words that I quoted back for you, you yourself have claimed that "apemen" with larger brains than chimps devolved into chimps.

No I didn't see anything of the sort because I never said anything of the sort.
​

mark,as both Assyrian and myself have now pointed out several times, you've used the term "apeman" describing homo habilis over and over. Plus, did you not write this:

mark wrote:

The Homo habilis specimans are probably prehistoric chimps. ... They did not evolve into humans they devolved into modern chimps and bonobos.

Your trolling tactics might be the source of rep points and 'Thataboys' from you Darwinian cohorts but you lack any substantive arguments so you resort to these fallacious ad hominems in desperation. There is one of you in every thread, your being used.

mark, so much of most of your posts are filled with trash-talking insults. don't you get tired of it after a while?

I have never been ambiguous about what I believe and I have answered this foolish accusation repeatedly. Chimpanzee ancestors are passed off as human ancestors..


Sure you've been ambiguous. Myself and several others have directly asked you several times exactly which hominids you consider human anscestors and which you consider chimp ancestors. And now, for yet another post, you have refused to give a straight answers. Unclear on what a straight answer might look like? How about something like "Homo habilis devolved into chimps, while Homo erectus evolved into humans."? Or some other scenario - whatever you'd like. But instead of a straight answer, we get line after line of trash talk from you.

I think you understand this, as a matter of fact, I'm sure your just hurling insults and false accusations because you have nothing else.

Who as more lines of insults in our posts, you or I? Have I used the words "childish", "troll", "trolling", "being used", and so many more? Which is more Christ - like?

​

Papias wrote:

So, looking at the graph below, are you saying that Homo habilis is a chimp ancestor? That Homo Erectus is? After all, some Homo Erectus skulls show smaller brains than some Homo Habillis skulls. Or even archaic Homo Sapiens? Wherever you place your line, are you then admitting that those with larger brains are human ancestors?

Still no answer beyond insults from you. Here it is again for your reference:

Now, you tell me which fossils are represented by the green dots and we can talk about hem.

Red Herring. That's over two dozen fossils. Are you saying you aren't sure what the fossils are on the graph?


​

Nonsense, you are trolling the forum plain and simple.

Really? You think that simply because so many of us have asked you for a straight answer about your own point and you refuse to give it? All of us together are trolling the forum?
​

I have clarified my position in no uncertain terms, so often, I am accused of spamming them.

Could you please link for me to where you said which hominids are human anscestors and which devolved into modern chimps? Another example of straight answer you could give would be "those above 800 cc evolved into humans, while those below 800cc devolved into modern chimps." Or pick 900 cc, or whatever you think is the case.

I gave up chasing evolutionist rhetoric years ago, now I just state clear, concise and explicit facts and wait for evolutionists to shoot themselves in the foot contradicting them. It would not be so bad were it not so darn easy.

And when actual data is posted, such as in the case of the hominid graph above, you call it "asinine"? And when you state facts, do you honestly show all the relevant data, or do you mislead by hiding data?



​

​

Which Pope is that?

The current Holy Father. The one you claim to have a quote from here:

I have shown you explicit statements of the current Pope with regards to Creation being inextricably linked to salvation, the resurrection and the inescapable historicity of the Genesis narratives.

I refuted you often made statement that the RCC now supports and endorses evolution.

mark, as we went through here: http://www.christianforums.com/t7554304/,
you are equivocating on the word "endorse". That's why I'm clear both in our debate and here that the RCC supports evolution, but doesn't require Catholics to hold to it, as "endorse" could imply. So let's be clear - we both agree that the RCC and the current Pope allow the belief in evolution, support the understanding of evolution as shown in the debate above, and have no theological problems with it, right?

No Christian believes the resurrection to be figurative with the exception of the unbelievers who make vain professions.

OK, mark, you've yet again contradicted yourself. Compare your statement above to your statement here:

I have shown you explicit statements of the current Pope with regards to Creation being inextricably linked to salvation, the resurrection and the inescapable historicity of the Genesis narratives. All points of doctrine theistic evolutionists commonly deny, dismissing them as figurative.

So are you or are you not saying, in the second statement, that theistic evolution supporters believe the resurrection as figurative?


....And all your Vatican quotes are consistent with the idea of Adam being the first transitional ape to be given a human soul by God.

Again, waiting for supporting data from you. I've asked you, mark, to support this claim with actual data at least three times now, and you still simply make bare assertions, as you so often do in your posts. I know that you appear to think that simply stating something over and over is evidence, but I hate to break it to you that it is isn't .

I think what we have here is a classic case of projection, nothing more. I make clear, concise and elaborated statements that bear no marks of ambiguity. What is more they bear no resemblance to the false accusations you make about what my position is.
​

OK, mark, here - for everyone to see - is your claim again that you know that I'm "very much alone" in my view of a historical Adam among theistic evolution supporters:

mark wrote:

You are very much alone here, theistic evolutionists, by and large, do not share your views.

So, now, you are up to four times that you have refused to back up your bare assertions.

To date, you are the rare exception to the evolutionist main stream that regards Adam as figurative, both in Genesis and Romans. Where are your cohorts, supporters or those in agreement with you on this point? Theistic evolutionists have argued venomously against me on this point, especially with regards to a literal Adam and original sin. You on the other hand have taken a minority few that has left you in a no man's land where Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists are opposed to various aspects of your position.

Does it get lonely out there all by yourself?

Wow, imagine that. Yet another bare assertion from mark, with no data to support it. I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
​

Everyone did descend from two people just as the nation of Israel (I mean modern Hebrews) descended from Abraham and Sarah. I fail to see what kind of a point you are trying to make but are you aware that Sarah was Abraham's cousin?

The point is that a nation can descend from a couple (and that this happens all the time) without that couple being the only ones alive in their generation. You don't seem to understand that about Adam and Eve. That's why you continue to think that Dr. Ayayla's quote is relevant when it isn't.

<B>

If you do, then you can see why your objection based on Dr. Ayayla's quote is baseless (and to continue to use it would be dishonest). If you don't, then just say so and I'll explain it again - remember the Mayflower discussion?

There you go calling me a liar again.
​

</B>
​

No, I'm pointing out that you don't understand that a couple can be the ancestors of a nation or entire species without ever being the only ones alive in their generation. The fact appears to be that you don't understand the fact that Abraham/Sarah and Adam/Eve both show this. Since you do understand that Abraham/Sarah had kids that bred with non-siblings should show you how this works.

I will use the same arguments again because there is nothing wrong with them. I understand exactly what Dr. Ayayla is saying and he is saying that there was no Adam that our ancestors always numbered in the hundreds. That is pure, undiluted, unadulterated polygenism

It isn't polygenism because those ancestors aren't yet human. That's why your argument is wrong, and why your quote from Dr. Ayayla is irrelevant.

Thank you for quoting HG 36 and 37. You can see from reading them that they are completely consistent with the transitional ape/human view of the historical Adam, the father of us all and the entry point of original sin.

See above. You apparently don't yet understand how ancestry works.

I do know how it works, it's called Mendelian Genetics.

Do you understand that Mendelian genetics is completely irrelevant to the reason why Dr. Ayayla's statement is completely consistent with the transitional ape/human view of the historical Adam? It would work the same if there were no Mendelian genetics.

Next, the Pope himself has stated that common ancstry of humans, evolving from earlier animals, is "virtually certain". So I have to disagree that you state the RCC has said it is "by no means certain". Come on mark, we've been over that quote too many times to count. Here it is again.

Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage.
​

Cardinal Ratzinger and International Theological Commission on Creation and Evolution
​

Yes but polygenism is not permissible, you keep forgetting that. Still think Adam married an Ape?

Of course polygenism is not permissible. It's also completely irrelevant. Adam of course, did marry and ape, just as you and I did - all humans are apes as well. As explained in the debate (feel free to go and read it), there are many possible scenarios for eve's status - including her being human, as you seem to want - I'm fine with that too.

I say that not to scold you but to warn you, you are all alone out there.

5th time for that bare assertion?

​

I'm aware Behe is not a Creationist, are you aware that Intelligent Design is regarded as a Creationist 'Trojan Horse'?

"intelligent design" can be used to name many different things. In the Behe form, it's theistic evolution. In the Dover case, it's stealth creationism. Maybe read up on those so you can understand them?

Where are your cohorts, supporters or those in agreement with you on this point? Theistic evolutionists have argued venomously against me on this point, especially with regards to a literal Adam and original sin.

So, I take it you don't hang out with many Catholics, right? Have most of those theistic evolution supporters been Catholics? As we saw, the RCC supports a historical Adam, and theistic evolution, so there are many supporters there. You can see that in common Catholic websites, like this one: Adam, Eve, and the Hominid Fossil Record, or this one http://www.saintaquinas.com/common_questions.html, and you can listen to Julia Sweeney's "Letting Go of God", where she describes the same "adam as transitional ape" that she, like many of us Catholics, was taught in sunday school. Or, may I recommend going to mass for a year or two? Or talking to a priest about it? Many of us also ask Jesus or Mary - you may want to do that as well.

In Christ-

Papias

​

 

[metherion]

No, Mark, no I would not like to have a formal debate with you.

You apparently have your own extra definition for Darwinism as something distinct from evolution. Funny, that, it ignores the other types of disproved evolution. Like Lamarkian evolution. You also don&#8217;t seem to realize that when you try to squash evolution down into one phrase, &#8216;change in alleles in populations over time&#8217;, you defeat your own argument. What ABOUT the change in alleles over time? How they change? Darwinian evolution. What causes them to change? Darwinian evolution. HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED IN THE PAST ACCORDING TO FOSSIL, GENOMIC, AND OTHER EVIDENCES? Darwinian evolution. Whoops, there&#8217;s your universal common descent that you loathe. So it&#8217;s NOT 100% compatible with Young Earth Creationism. But you don&#8217;t realize it. And you won&#8217;t admit it. You want to have your &#8216;gotcha&#8217;. And the thing is&#8230; you can&#8217;t sum up an entire field of science to &#8216;change in alleles in populations over time.&#8217; If describing everything learned about the mechanisms of evolution, the causes, the effects, that changes that have been wrought was THAT easy, scientists would have discovered everything about the universe long ago.

And the best part is, you never trot that out until AFTER someone uses the term Darwinian evolution, which is the currently evidenced variety of evolution, and then claim Darwinism is something different you made up. You also have never defined &#8216;Darwinian logic&#8217; as being different from Darwinian evolution. So you just lie in wait before you spring your &#8216;definitions&#8217; trap. I&#8217;ve seen you do it time and time again.
As for a null hypothesis for Darwinian evolution, how about &#8216;there is no correlation between (phenomena being measured/predicted) and (event explained by Darwinian evolution)&#8217;. That&#8217;s a pretty standard one. So, for nylonase for example, the null hypothesis might be &#8220;The ability to digest nylon was NOT dependent on the spread of a certain gene through the population and selection via ability to access food.&#8221; The null hypothesis would have to change depending on the individual experiment. The &#8216;no empirical evidence&#8217; canard is refuted by the very existence of multiple peer reviewed evolutionary journals.

You also have been doing nothing but ignoring my points.

Gravity is science because it can be reduced to directly observed or demonstrated tests and proofs.

Not about types of matter that haven&#8217;t been discovered. There are no direct observations or demonstrated tests and proofs about those, because the matter to observe or test hasn&#8217;t been discovered or confirmed. Just like the life in other planets. BUT GRAVITY IS STILL ASSUMED TO APPLY EVEN TO UNKNOWN FORMS OF MATTER JUST LIKE EVOLUTION IS ASSUMED TO APPLY TO UNKOWN FORMS OF LIFE. That&#8217;s my positive argument. But you&#8217;ll just hand wave that away. That&#8217;s all you&#8217;ve been doing.

Furthermore, if gravity is a &#8216;law of science&#8217;, the how is it LESS NATURALISTIC? How does gravity being a law make LESS DISMISSIVE OF SUPERNATURAL INTERVENTIONS? How does gravity, in astrophysics, causing accretion, manage to be LESS DISMISSIVE OF SUPERNATURAL CREATIVE INFLUENCES IN STARS than YOU CLAIM evolution is towards life? What fields are science are the most naturalistic? Least? What fields of science accept supernatural intervention as explanations? Which ones don&#8217;t? (Hint, none of them do.)
You say

No it's not, it's a rejection of special creation in favor of a gradualist natural selection of favored traits.

But completely ignore that&#8230;
Gravity and astrophysics (especially accretion) is a rejection of special creation (of stars in the Heavens) in favor of a gradualist accretion process that also violates Genesis by having the star of a system form before the planets, thought Genesis says the Earth came before the Sun. Fun story, gravity is assumed to be the reason ALL stars formed, even back to the Big Bang, to the origin of matter. It is therefore, by similarities to your incorrect definitions of evolution, metaphysics without rules, transcending time and space. Also, funny story, gravity itself is claimed to transcend space, because every point mass in the universe exerts a force on every other point mass in the universe, regardless of distance. But you won&#8217;t let that stand in your way, you&#8217;ll just hand wave it away.

And, oh, by the way, the quote I got from you was your response to my talk about Darwinian evolution specifically, so you obviously know what it means and are just using your definitions as a canard.

Furthermore, the law of universal gravitation is part of the THEORY OF GRAVITY. So comparing one part of a theory to another part of another theory that happens to contain a mathematical equation dubbed a &#8216;law&#8217; is PERFECTLY VALID. And you even keep bringing up that the modern synthesis includes Mendel&#8217;s laws, so it&#8217;s one theory that includes laws of science with another. And remember, Newton&#8217;s &#8216;law&#8217; was shown wrong by the orbit of Mercury, and superseded by general relativity, and is kept around because it is a far simpler (math-wise) and quite reliable approximation for most things not at relativistic speeds or masses. Might be why I just brought up &#8216;gravity&#8217; and the &#8216;theory of gravity&#8217; (since relativity is still part gravity) rather than a broken law while trying to play up the importance (or lack thereof) of it being a &#8216;law&#8217;&#8230; but then again, I&#8217;m just a self-respect-less person who has to be spoon fed by creationists and who categorically rejects God&#8217;s capacity to do miracles (your words, and I can quote them if desired to show I&#8217;m not showing a persecution complex, as detailed below, upon request)&#8230; so what should I expect?

You&#8217;ve repeated tried to lump me in with atheists, and miracle deniers, and the like, in this case just because I pointed out there is Biblical evidence of God acting through natural means. Just because I realize God can act through natural means and can list times He has done so in the Bible does NOT mean I deny God can act through supernatural means, though you have repeatedly flung the accusation at me, such as in this quote:

Don't know what to tell you about that if you reject miracles categorically.

Then, of course, there&#8217;s the persecution complex, here exemplified by

Oh ok, I must be misunderstanding those terms since I'm a Creationist right? Let's discuss this further and come to an agreement about those terms before we start assuming the meanings and assuming I must be ignorant for rejecting Darwinian logic.

And

and the inevitable ad hominems are coming, they always do.

No, you are NOT necessarily misunderstanding the terms because you&#8217;re a creationist. I never said any such thing. You are necessarily misunderstanding the terms because it is your M. O. in how you try to discuss things. This is just part of why I will not debate with you. It&#8217;s hilarious that you keep accusing others of ad hominems while calling us nasty, evil, malicious, faithless, and so on. Just in this thread you have specifically said the following things about me:
I am semantically challenged.
I don&#8217;t know what&#8217;s going on in the Bible.
I am counted among those with animosity towards the resurrection, as well as those who ridiculed Newton.
I categorically reject miracles.
I don&#8217;t bother to think things through.
I have no self-respect.
And this is just directed at me, not counting all the insults and hate you&#8217;ve been directing at Papias and Assyrian, nor all the disparaging comments you make almost every post talking about all evolutionists. All the while you are beating the ad hominem drum, going OH NO I AM UNDER AD HOMINEM ATTACK, while you&#8217;ve been throwing out personal attacks like confetti.


You also keep placing Newton, Mendel, Darwin, et cetera on pedestals, taking their writings as absolute truth as if no new discoveries have been made in the past several hundred years. Yes, Darwin wrote about the origin of life. And? There have been advances in biochemistry and biology and evolution since. So Newton thought and wrote that only God could arrange a planetary system around a star. And? That doesn&#8217;t make it ABSOLUTE TRUTH THAT EVERY ENDEAVOR IN THE RELATED FIELD MUST STICK BY WHAT THAT PERSON WROTE AS TRUTH &#8482; FOREVERMORE!
Further, if you are defining evolution as &#8216;change in alleles in population over time&#8217;, then how can it involve the origin of life, when there was neither population nor alleles?

You&#8217;ve come up with some hand-waving scheme every time. You&#8217;ve not addressed the real point. And you&#8217;ve still not told me what terms I am equivocating, or what ad hominems I was making, or what the circular argument was. Oh, and by the way, the term &#8216;arguing in circles&#8217; that you used is not the same as a &#8216;circular argument&#8217;. See, when I called YOU out on equivocating, I at least told you that I was claiming your equivocation on the definition of Intelligent Design when you said Newton advocated and would support it.

You&#8217;ve managed to keep saying Papias is attacking you with false ad hominems even after Assyrian produced quotes of you saying EXACTLY WHAT PAPIAS THOUGHT YOU SAID. That&#8217;s kind of the final straw.
Again, here&#8217;s the exchange:

Papias:

Besides, since you believe that humans evolved into chimps (not the other way around), wouldn't you, mark, expect it to be 98% or even higher?

Mark:

I don't know where you get 'evolved into chimps' but then again I don't think you do either.

Assyrian:
But Mark said

The Homo habilis specimans &#8230; did not evolve into humans they devolved into modern chimps and bonobos.

Mark
NO THAT IS NOT WHAT PAPAIS SAID AT ALL.
And, by the way, the ones represented by the green diamonds are H. Habilis while the ones represented by green triangles are H. Heidelbergensis. There&#8217;s a legend on the graph, you should read it. Of course, since you know everything there is to know about everything about hominids ever, why aren&#8217;t you just pulling exactly which skulls is represented by which out of somewhere and discussing that? Just more handwaving.

And then, of course, you need to use accepted definitions, because you say Homo Habilus is an ape, as if that somehow makes it distinct from humankind, but since humanity falls into the classification of &#8216;ape&#8217;, no, it really doesn&#8217;t. Words have definitions, Mark, no matter how much you like to ignore them and try to come up with &#8216;gotcha&#8217;s and &#8216;define your term&#8217; canards. You mean &#8216;non-human and non-human-ancestor ape&#8217;.

You just can&#8217;t seem to admit you&#8217;re wrong. And you won&#8217;t. You&#8217;ll hand wave everything I&#8217;ve said here away without acknowledging that any of it is valid. I predict that again, just like last time.
I&#8217;m sorry Mark. I have no interest debating you. I know the tricks you trot out time and time again, and I don&#8217;t wish to waste my time promising to type up at least a set number of further long, thoughtful answers that address your points in a formal &#8216;debate&#8217; to have my points hand waved away or buried under calls for definitions, calls of false persecution, or casual dismissals of my faith. A casual dismissal of my faith, by the way, is also ad hominem. In case you didn&#8217;t know. God forbid what would have happened if I had said YOU lacked faith.


Metherion

PS:

Oh, and by the way, you stated:

Chimpanzee ancestors are passed off as human ancestors while their ancestors are in natural history museums marked Homo XXX as a Darwinian ploy to create the illusion of a transitional 'apeman'.

Back when I was trying in good faith to correct Papias&#8217; misconception, I specifically said

Therefore, Mark believes that many human ancestors are ACTUALLY chimpanzee ancestors, mixed up because of the pressure to present more human ancestors.

Yet you told me what I said was NOT your opinion on the matter. How are these two statements meaningfully different? Not that I expect an answer.

 

[mark kennedy]

No, Mark, no I would not like to have a formal debate with you.

I didn't think so.

You apparently have your own extra definition for Darwinism as something distinct from evolution.

Yes, evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time and Darwinism is the origin and evolution of all living systems by exclusively naturalistic means. There is a profound difference.

Funny, that, it ignores the other types of disproved evolution. Like Lamarkian evolution. You also don’t seem to realize that when you try to squash evolution down into one phrase, ‘change in alleles in populations over time’, you defeat your own argument. What ABOUT the change in alleles over time? How they change? Darwinian evolution. What causes them to change? Darwinian evolution. HOW THEY HAVE CHANGED IN THE PAST ACCORDING TO FOSSIL, GENOMIC, AND OTHER EVIDENCES? Darwinian evolution.

You mean Lamark, who Charles Darwin credited with being the first to propose that ALL species, including man, are descended from other species?

Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Darwin proposed an explanation for evolution that did not happen as a result of 'miraculous interposition'. He credits Lamarck with being the first to propose species (the implication is clearly 'all' species) descended from previous species without God. So what we have here is not one definition of evolution but two, there is the change of populations over time and the a priori assumption that God had nothing to do with their origins or development and ALL evolutionists defend this point zealously, yourself included.

What is being rejected before any of the evidence is considered is God as Creator. What is the cause of evolution, defined in minimalist terms as, 'the change of alleles in populations over time? The fact of the matter is that the source of adaptive evolution is not natural selection nor can it be, simply because in order for a favorable trait to be 'selected' it must first be manifest. The cause of adaptive evolution has to be a molecular mechanism, not a presupposition of exclusively naturalistic causes.

Whoops, there’s your universal common descent that you loathe. So it’s NOT 100% compatible with Young Earth Creationism. But you don’t realize it. And you won’t admit it.

Actually, evolutionary biology is 100% compatible with young earth creationism. Not a single creationist is arguing against Mendelian genetics. What is 100% opposed to Creationism is Darwinian evolution, Darwin was simply opposed to the concept that life was the result of a deliberate act of God. That's all it is and equivocating that with evolutionary biology is fallacious.

You also have never defined ‘Darwinian logic’ as being different from Darwinian evolution.

My working definition, admittedly a minimalist one, is 'the change of alleles in populations over time'. Darwinian logic as elaborated on by Darwin himself is a categorical rejection of God as Creator. There is a difference between Darwinism and evolution and you are still equivocating the two.

So you just lie in wait before you spring your ‘definitions’ trap. I’ve seen you do it time and time again.

It's not a trap, it's a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic assumptions. One you refuse to honestly admit.

As for a null hypothesis for Darwinian evolution, how about ‘there is no correlation between (phenomena being measured/predicted) and (event explained by Darwinian evolution)’.

Hang on there! There is no correlation between the phenomena and the explanation? How many fallacies can you fit into a single post, they are cropping up in every paragraph. You are not only applying Darwinian evolution before the living system is examined, you disregard the process while it is being measured/predicted. Should Darwinian logic be oblivious to the resulting effect of the phenomena as well?

You also have been doing nothing but ignoring my points.

Oh, I would never ignore your posts, that doesn't mean I'm going to chase your circular reasoning endlessly.

Not about types of matter that haven’t been discovered. There are no direct observations or demonstrated tests and proofs about those, because the matter to observe or test hasn’t been discovered or confirmed. Just like the life in other planets. BUT GRAVITY IS STILL ASSUMED TO APPLY EVEN TO UNKNOWN FORMS OF MATTER JUST LIKE EVOLUTION IS ASSUMED TO APPLY TO UNKOWN FORMS OF LIFE. That’s my positive argument. But you’ll just hand wave that away. That’s all you’ve been doing.

The problem is that gravity and the principles of motion are scientific laws. In order to assume evolution in the same way you assume gravity is to identify the requisite law of science that is known to be universal in it's scope. There is nothing like that in Darwinism except a naturalistic assumption which is not the same thing as natural science. The only 'laws' of science involved in the inheritance of traits, known to modern science, are Mendelian. Evolutionary biology has laws of science, Darwinian logic does not since it comes before the phenomena of evolution, does not correlate to the phenomena and I suspect, is oblivious to the resulting effects.

Also, funny story, gravity itself is claimed to transcend space, because every point mass in the universe exerts a force on every other point mass in the universe, regardless of distance. But you won’t let that stand in your way, you’ll just hand wave it away.

I did not hand wave anything, I simply refuted the fallacious equivocation of Darwinian logic with the law of gravity, aka universal gravitation. Darwinian logic is not inductive nor is it deductive, it is a transcendent a priori assumption that comes before, is assumed throughout and never questioned.

And, oh, by the way, the quote I got from you was your response to my talk about Darwinian evolution specifically, so you obviously know what it means and are just using your definitions as a canard.

I'm using the definitions as a distinction between naturalistic assumptions and natural science, plain and simple.

Ok, I have a ton of stuff to do tomorrow and I get kind of tired of chasing this argument in circles so, here's the problem. I have no problem with this statement:

Furthermore, the law of universal gravitation is part of the THEORY OF GRAVITY. So comparing one part of a theory to another part of another theory that happens to contain a mathematical equation dubbed a ‘law’ is PERFECTLY VALID.

Here's the problem:

And you even keep bringing up that the modern synthesis includes Mendel’s laws, so it’s one theory that includes laws of science with another.

No it doesn't. Darwin's theory of natural selection did not include Mendel's Laws of inheritance until the Modern Synthesis. What is more they make no reference to natural selection and exist as stand alone, universal principles, that are ubiquitous to all living systems, anomalies excepted.

The formula for a Synthesis is pretty simple, you have a thesis, antithesis and a synthesis. The thesis of evolutionary biology as represented in the emerging science of genetics during the framing of the Modern Synthesis was Mendelian. It should be understood that genetics for almost half a century was not regarded as a genuine science because it dealt only with effects. Darwinism was also having problems since natural selection is really the selection of favorable traits due to their effect and can only be regarded as a cause in the most general way.

This is my point and you can think what you like. The cause was finally uncovered, quantified and correlated to the effect, it's called DNA which is the elemental cause. With the ability of scientists to identify sequential patterns as the direct cause (amino acids=protein products) evolutionary biology blended molecular biology with genetics. That means, in order for there to be a cause and effect explanation for the evolution the cause has to be a molecular mechanism.

So you don't want to have a formal debate but you expect me to endure your fallacious arguments in circles. I assure you this is not going to happen. What I will do instead is point them out, demonstrate how you are using them as a pattern and leave you to your own devices.

One last thing and this one is priceless.

Mark:

I don't know where you get 'evolved into chimps' but then again I don't think you do either.​

Assyrian:
But Mark said

The Homo habilis specimans … did not evolve into humans they devolved into modern chimps and bonobos.​

Mark
NO THAT IS NOT WHAT PAPAIS SAID AT ALL.

How you are defending Papais in this is a mystery to me. Papais was saying that I made the claim the humans 'devolved' into chimpanzees. I never said anything of the sort. I consider most, if not all, of the Homo habilis to be Chimpanzee ancestors passed off as human ancestors plain and simple. Papais knows this, Assyrian knows this and you know this. This is the part of the debate where I know I finally have my opponent because there is nothing left but a baseless 'ad hominem' attack. Papais used it and the two of you defended it and it is no less absurd now then it was when he made the original accusation none of you believe.

I do not hate Darwinism, I certainly do not hate Christians who happen to believe that Darwinian logic is a satisfactory theory of our origin. I do know Darwinism for what it is and it's a categorical rejection of God as Creator, an a priori assumption of universal descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I would have enjoyed debating the requisite issues with you formally but you refused. Instead you choose to throw out these profoundly flawed arguments endlessly and that's perfectly fine by me. All I have to do is sit down and watch you chase your strawman arguments in circles and refuse the make Darwinian naturalistic assumptions, no matter how many times you beg the question of proof on your hands and knees.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Keachian]

Yes, evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time and Darwinism is the origin and evolution of all living systems by exclusively naturalistic means. There is a profound difference.

If this is your definition of darwinism then no theistic evolutionist that I have met is a darwinist, especially since the idea that "naturalistic means" is a philosophical idea that dictates that God cannot be involved and theistic evolution says that God is involved at every step.

 

[Assyrian]

That's right, an ape passed off as a transitional hominid, aka apeman. It's apparent that I regard Homo hablilis as an ape and the 'apeman' as a myth.

That is what would have had to happen for the human brain to have evolved from that of apes. This is a references to cranial capacity and the timeline scenario of evolutionists. They claim it happened gradually over time but the fact is it would have had to happen suddenly about 2 mya with the emergence of Homo erectus where the cranial capacity would have had to double overnight. The Homo habilis skulls are well below the lower limit for hominids, that is unless you move the 'Cerebral Rubicon' back, thus moving the goal posts. Homo habilis is representative of apes who were about 5 foot tall with a cranial capacity just slightly larger then modern apes.

They did not evolve into humans, they got smaller which is the trend since the Deluge due to decreased longevity and scarcer resources. Papias hasn't got a clue what is going on in Paleontology and he is deeply confused about what the theological issues are here. Instead of helping him understand the issues your encouraging his misconceptions, a practice I believe to be malicious and shameful.

Exactly! What is more I have been crystal clear while he has twisted my words to mean something that never occurred to me. What is more he knows it and what is worse, you are encouraging him to continue this fallacious line of reasoning when you should be helping him understand.

So if everything papias said there was what you believe and have stated in your posts, why accuse him trolling? How is it an ad hom to say why you have stated yourself? Why claim you never said anything of the sort when you clearly have?

 

[metherion]

[FONT=&quot]Yes, evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time and Darwinism is the origin and evolution of all living systems by exclusively naturalistic means. There is a profound difference. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And yet you have yet to show any evidence that there is a difference besides your baseless assertion that there is one. I would have thought you knew it didn’t work that way.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You mean Lamark, who Charles Darwin credited with being the first to propose that ALL species, including man, are descended from other species? [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot][snipped by me][/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Darwin proposed an explanation for evolution that did not happen as a result of 'miraculous interposition'. He credits Lamarck with being the first to propose species (the implication is clearly 'all' species) descended from previous species without God. So what we have here is not one definition of evolution but two, there is the change of populations over time and the a priori assumption that God had nothing to do with their origins or development and ALL evolutionists defend this point zealously, yourself included. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]HAHAHAHAHAHA no. You say the name Lamarck and went off on a huge tangent. Do you know what Lamarckian evolution is? How it is different from Darwinian evolution (the actual definition, not the baseless assertion one?) Did you bother to address that point (no, you did not)? And WHO inserted the phrase WITHOUT GOD willy nilly into other people’s writings and obviously ignored all references to a creator by Darwin? You see, as I gave Biblical examples before, God’s actions need not be miraculous interposition, and miraculous interposition itself IS NOT GOD. Of course, you then condemned me for rejecting miracles out of hand, so maybe you DON”T believe God can act without an outright laws-of-the-universe-bending miracle.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Also, by the by, the term ‘naturalist’ as used by Darwin in the section you quoted does not mean ‘an adherent to the philosophy of naturalism’. Before the advent of modern science, naturalist was used as someone who studied natural history and a naturalist then would generally be counted as some flavor of biologist or geologist today. So, I’m not sure, but you may be equivocating on that word too. Heck, even dictionary.com has the older definition first:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Naturalist | Define Naturalist at Dictionary.com[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]However, Miriam Webster has the older definition second:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/naturalist[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Furthermore, if God SET the laws, is it not God’s work that changes species, even if done without miracles? Laws being a looser term here, NOT meaning ‘only those things that science has named laws)[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]And let’s face it, what scientific discipline accepts miracles for explanations, or includes them in its explanations? What miraculous interposition does gravity accepts? Astrophysics regarding accretion and the formations of stars? What miraculous interpositions are accepted there? Or are miraculous interpositions in gravity also discounted a priori? (hint, they are.) [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Last thing before I move on to the next topic, what do you think of M. Laplace’s rather famous quote regarding Napoleon’s question to Lapace as to why there was no mention of God in his post-Newton work on celestial mechanics:[/FONT]
Je n'avais pas besoin de cette hypothèse-là. ("I had no need of that hypothesis.")
I ask because he followed Newton, and improved upon Newton’s work, as well as making advances Newton was unable to, and M. Laplace is often referred to as the French Newton. Also, did the fact that all the work he did, well… worked, without needing to mention or invoke God mean that anything he worked on is more or less naturalistic because of a lack of invocation of the divine?
[FONT=&quot]

What is being rejected before any of the evidence is considered is God as Creator. What is the cause of evolution, defined in minimalist terms as, 'the change of alleles in populations over time? The fact of the matter is that the source of adaptive evolution is not natural selection nor can it be, simply because in order for a favorable trait to be 'selected' it must first be manifest. The cause of adaptive evolution has to be a molecular mechanism, not a presupposition of exclusively naturalistic causes.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]What is rejected in ALL OF SCIENCE is an a priori supernatural explanation that involves no ‘how’. GOD IS CREATOR! Okay… that tells us WHAT about HOW God created? Oh, right, nothing. And by the way, that’s EXACTLY AS TRUE FOR GRAVITY AND THE STARS AS IT IS FOR EVOLUTION.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]So, you think that natural selection is the only cause of variation? No WONDER you are so confused. See, there are MULTIPLE THINGS involved in the changes of allele patterns. Selection is one, reproduction with variation is another, and so on.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Actually, evolutionary biology is 100% compatible with young earth creationism. Not a single creationist is arguing against Mendelian genetics. What is 100% opposed to Creationism is Darwinian evolution, Darwin was simply opposed to the concept that life was the result of a deliberate act of God. That's all it is and equivocating that with evolutionary biology is fallacious. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Mendelian genetics is not the entirely of evolutionary biology. You sir, also have a tremendous burden of proof towards showing Darwin’s opposition, and then another tremendous burden of proof to show HOW WHAT DARWIN PERSONALLY THOUGHT MATTERS IN SCIENCE ONE WHIT.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]My working definition, admittedly a minimalist one, is 'the change of alleles in populations over time'. Darwinian logic as elaborated on by Darwin himself is a categorical rejection of God as Creator. There is a difference between Darwinism and evolution and you are still equivocating the two. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]PAHAHAHA! So you are actually ASSERTING that Darwin wrote on EXACTLY HOW TO REJECT GOD AS CREATOR WHEN HE WROTE ABOUT EVOLUTION? Source? Text? Didn’t think so.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]It's not a trap, it's a distinct difference between natural science and naturalistic assumptions. One you refuse to honestly admit. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Nope, one YOU refuse to admit doesn’t exist, because you can’t or won’t admit that NO FIELD OF SCIENCE TAKES MIRACLES AS CAUSES OR ASSUMES ANY “GOD” IS A VALID SCIENTIFIC EXPLANATION.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Hang on there! There is no correlation between the phenomena and the explanation? How many fallacies can you fit into a single post, they are cropping up in every paragraph. You are not only applying Darwinian evolution before the living system is examined, you disregard the process while it is being measured/predicted. Should Darwinian logic be oblivious to the resulting effect of the phenomena as well? [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I was talking about the null hypothesis. You even included that I was talking about a null hypothesis in what you quoted! Remember that the null hypothesis is generally the position defaulted to, which USUALLY is ‘there is no relation’? Your generic-and-usually-acceptable null hypothesis is that ‘the phenomenon being measured has NO CORRELATION to the proposed cause’. If there is sufficient evidence that the measured phenomena IS caused by the proposed cause, the null hypothesis is overturned. It doesn’t work in every case, but it’s a very good rule of thumb, and a good starting point even when that exact type of statement won’t work (such as if one is measuring degrees of effect).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Oh, I would never ignore your posts, that doesn't mean I'm going to chase your circular reasoning endlessly. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]You are misusing the definition of circular reasoning. You are also refusing to answer or address the points I bring up. You are just hand waving them away, baselessly asserting them away, and throwing your burden of proof to anywhere but in your hands. You are also not comprehending what I’m talking about in several areas.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot].[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

The problem is that gravity and the principles of motion are scientific laws. In order to assume evolution in the same way you assume gravity is to identify the requisite law of science that is known to be universal in it's scope. There is nothing like that in Darwinism except a naturalistic assumption which is not the same thing as natural science. The only 'laws' of science involved in the inheritance of traits, known to modern science, are Mendelian. Evolutionary biology has laws of science, Darwinian logic does not since it comes before the phenomena of evolution, does not correlate to the phenomena and I suspect, is oblivious to the resulting effects.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]This just shows you don’t understand science at all. Seriously. So because something has ‘law’ attached to its name, it’s automatically better than everything else? That’s not how it works, Mark. Later on, you even say you have no problem accepting that the law of universal gravitation is part of the theory of gravity, so the fact that part of the theory of gravity is dubbed a ‘law’ has no bearing.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You also seem to have no problem believing gravity is universal in scope while there is, of course, no direct testing or experiment of gravity in every part of the universe or on undiscovered forms of matter, yet somehow evolution is transcendent metaphysics BECAUSE [/FONT]

Darwinian logic applies to all life, even those 'undiscovered'. Now you tell me how that is based on observation.

[FONT=&quot]You also have never bothered to explain the difference between natural science and your ‘naturalistic assumption’ assertion you keep invoking. How are other sciences less naturalistic? Physics doesn’t accept miracles. Biology doesn’t accept miracles. Chemistry doesn’t accept miracles. Geology likewise, et cetera et cetera et cetera. And none of them start from God, either.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]I did not hand wave anything, I simply refuted the fallacious equivocation of Darwinian logic with the law of gravity, aka universal gravitation. Darwinian logic is not inductive nor is it deductive, it is a transcendent a priori assumption that comes before, is assumed throughout and never questioned.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]No, you hand waved it away by baselessly and wrongly asserting that since one of them has the word ‘law’ in its name and the other has the word ‘theory’ in its name that the law wins and they can’t be equal. You are wrong in that. Flat out wrong. And you keep using your baseless assertion, over and over and over, ad infinitum. It’s still wrong, every time.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

I'm using the definitions as a distinction between naturalistic assumptions and natural science, plain and simple.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And yet you’ve never bothered to say what the difference is. Probably because the only difference is I DON”T LIKE THIS ONE SO IT’S THEREFORE NATURALISTIC. You haven’t said WHY any other science is less naturalistic that evolution when NO SCIENCE ACCEPTS MIRACULOUS INTERPOSITION AS EXPLANATIONS FOR ANYTHING.

[/FONT]Snipped and continued.

Metherion
[FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[metherion]

Continued from snipping:

[FONT=&quot]Here's the problem:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And you even keep bringing up that the modern synthesis includes Mendel&#8217;s laws, so it&#8217;s one theory that includes laws of science with another.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]No it doesn't. Darwin's theory of natural selection did not include Mendel's Laws of inheritance until the Modern Synthesis. What is more they make no reference to natural selection and exist as stand alone, universal principles, that are ubiquitous to all living systems, anomalies excepted. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]First off, even in the part you quoted, I specifically stated THE MODERN SYNTHESIS INCLUDES MENDEL&#8217;S LAWs, to which your first reply was &#8216;no it doesn&#8217;t&#8217;, followed by your statement that Mendel&#8217;s laws weren&#8217;t including until THE MODERN SYNTHESIS. You disagree with me and contradict me, only to back up what I said in the same breath! Why is that?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Oh, and by the way, why isn&#8217;t your stating that Mendel&#8217;s Law apply to all living systems, even those undiscovered, as universal principles somehow NOT transcendent metaphysics, as you claim Darwinian evolution is for doing the EXACT SAME THING?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Furthermore, you&#8217;re pretty far wrong. The modern synthesis of evolution includes Darwinian evolution. Natural selection is one method for the changing of alleles in a population over time, and is therefore included in even your scant definition.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

So you don't want to have a formal debate but you expect me to endure your fallacious arguments in circles. I assure you this is not going to happen. What I will do instead is point them out, demonstrate how you are using them as a pattern and leave you to your own devices.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]And I, in turn, will keep pointing out how you evade, how you throw off the burden of proof, how you base your entirely argument on false assertions, how you constantly avoid the question of how other sciences are less naturalistic than evolution (since no field of science accepts miraculous interposition as an answer, just try to get THAT published&#8230, keep showing when you miss the point, and so on.

[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]How you are defending Papais in this is a mystery to me. Papais was saying that I made the claim the humans 'devolved' into chimpanzees. I never said anything of the sort. I consider most, if not all, of the Homo habilis to be Chimpanzee ancestors passed off as human ancestors plain and simple. Papais knows this, Assyrian knows this and you know this. This is the part of the debate where I know I finally have my opponent because there is nothing left but a baseless 'ad hominem' attack. Papais used it and the two of you defended it and it is no less absurd now then it was when he made the original accusation none of you believe. [/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Defending Papias? Papias is capable of defending himself. What I was bringing up was how you kept accusing Papias of being a troll and throwing ad hominems at you.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]You see, I had thought you&#8217;d have the decency to do something like this:[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Oh. Okay. There was a misunderstanding. I don&#8217;t think homo habilius are actually human ancestors. I think homo habilius are actually chimpanzee ancestors, and that there is neither time nor mechanism for the human brain to form from any &#8216;human ancestor&#8217;. But, if you were missing the part where I thought Homo Habilius specifically were chimpanzee ancestors, coupled with Assyrian&#8217;s quote that showed I actually used the word &#8216;devolve&#8217;, I could see how you might misunderstand and think that Ithought humans or human ancestors evolved/devolved into chimpanzees. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Heck, I even made a good faith effort to try and point at least part that out to him, but you dismissed it out of hand, accusing everyone involved of ad hominems and trolling. Also, apparently Papias DIDN&#8221;T know that or had misunderstood when he made his misunderstanding. Maybe if you weren&#8217;t so invested in seeing vitriol spewed at you that you make vitriol up out of anything, you&#8217;d&#8217;ve realized it. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]

I do not hate Darwinism, I certainly do not hate Christians who happen to believe that Darwinian logic is a satisfactory theory of our origin. I do know Darwinism for what it is and it's a categorical rejection of God as Creator, an a priori assumption of universal descent by exclusively naturalistic means. I would have enjoyed debating the requisite issues with you formally but you refused. Instead you choose to throw out these profoundly flawed arguments endlessly and that's perfectly fine by me. All I have to do is sit down and watch you chase your strawman arguments in circles and refuse the make Darwinian naturalistic assumptions, no matter how many times you beg the question of proof on your hands and knees.

[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Juding by the vitriol you spew out, you do hate evolutionists. You don&#8217;t know Darwinism for what it is, you just THINK you do. There would have been no debate, just more of what we&#8217;ve seen here, which is tremendously similar to the formal debate with Papias. But go ahead and keep thinking what you&#8217;re thinking. I don&#8217;t see it as a salvation issue, while you obviously think I&#8217;m losing mine based on what you&#8217;ve said so&#8230; eh. I&#8217;m not worried about it.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]There&#8217;s no reason you need to be in a formal debate to say why the rejection of miracles in one field makes it naturalistic while the rejection of miracles in another field makes it natural science. There&#8217;s no reason you need to be in a formal debate to say &#8216;hey, these are the terms you are equivocating&#8217;, &#8216;hey, this is where your premise is the same as your conclusion, thus your argument is circular,&#8217; or the like. And if you won&#8217;t do it here, why should I have to commit myself to a formal debate to get you to do so?

Depending on what you&#8217;re busy with tomorrow, I hope you a)have fun, b) are productive, c) have everything run smoothly, d) work/play safely, or e) any applicable combination of the above based on what you&#8217;re busy with.[/FONT]


[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Metherion[/FONT]

 

[shernren]

Suffice to say that mark's "open" questions are hardly open. He is at best not good with words and at worst a troll, plain and simple.

Let me address the point on genome similarity by pointing out that mark kennedy's genome is shorter than his mother's genome by about 100 million base pairs. How do I know this? His Y chromosome has a length of 50 million base pairs, while his mother must have as a replacement an X chromosome with a length of more than 150 million base pairs.

Now the human genome's length is about 3 billion base pairs, which means that the length difference between the X chromosome and the Y chromosome comes up to about 3.3% - not a lot, to be sure, but far more than the 2% mark kennedy is quibbling over. Who cares if chimpanzees are 98% similar to humans when, by his own metrics, men have only 97% of the genetic material of women?

And you always wondered why men were so immature and women so inscrutable ...

 

[Papias]

Metherion wrote:

You (mark) see, I had thought you&#8217;d (mark) have the decency to do something like this:
[FONT=&quot]Oh. Okay. There was a misunderstanding. I don&#8217;t think homo habilius are actually human ancestors. I think homo habilius are actually chimpanzee ancestors, and that there is neither time nor mechanism for the human brain to form from any &#8216;human ancestor&#8217;. But, if you were missing the part where I thought Homo Habilius specifically were chimpanzee ancestors, coupled with Assyrian&#8217;s quote that showed I actually used the word &#8216;devolve&#8217;, I could see how you might misunderstand and think that Ithought humans or human ancestors evolved/devolved into chimpanzees.[/FONT]

Yes. Thank you Metherion. As I've pointed out before, I admitted that I didn't fully understand mark's point, and then went on to clarify that mark was saying that human ancestors (as shown on the cranial capacity graph, such as Homo habilis) had devolved into modern chimpanzees.

Note that mark still hasn't clarified which he's talking about, so even now, it is still quite possible, from what we know of mark's position, that mark thinks humans (such as archaic Homo sapiens, which are on that graph, and who we'd consider human) devolved into chimps, since he won't specifiy which of the human ancestors on the graph he thinks devolved into chimps.

Note also that because Homo habilis is an ancestor to us humans, mark is, wherever he puts his line, still saying that human ancestors devolved into modern chimps.

To supplement my last post (which mark still hasn't replied to), it crossed my mind that perhaps the illustration below will help mark understand ancestry.


OK, consider the human population of the area of modern day Israel back in the time just before Abraham was born. It consists of all non-Israelites, each represented by an asterisk, below:

Gen 1 ****************************************** (+ a million more or so)

Call that Generation 1 (Gen1)

Now, Gen 2, Abraham & Sarah are marked in blue:
Gen 2 ******************************************* (+ a million more or so)

Now, moving down two generations, Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, so this is Jacob's generation, Gen 4, with Jacob marked in blue - Jacob was the first "Israelite" in this story, see Genesis 32.

Gen 4 ****************************************** (+ a million more or so)

As you know, Jacob had several sons and daugthers, each of whome took spouses from the other people alive at the time. So here are those kids, in Gen 5. Israelites (Jews) are marked in blue.

Gen 5 ****************************************** (+ a million more or so)

So in the next generation (Gen 6), the kids of those couples (who are the grandkids of Jacob) are all Israelites. And they too take spouses from the other people alive at the time.
Israelites (Jews) are marked in blue.

Gen 6 ********************************************** (+ a million more or so)

So in the next generation (Gen 7), the kids of those grandkids (who are the great grandkids of Jacob) are all Israelites. And they too take spouses from the other people alive at the time.
Israelites (Jews) are marked in blue.

Gen 7 ********************************************** (+ a million more or so)

You can see how this is going. Doing some simple math, you can see that the descendants of Jacob (the Jews) could easily number in the millions in just 20 -30 generations, because (at least initially) they get their spouses from non-Jews, and any child is a descendant of Jacob even if only one parent is a descendant of Jacob. So fast forwarding to, say, the time of King David, there are millions of Jews, all of whom are descended from Jacob.

OK, now, let's look at that Adam situation again.
Consider the hominid population that is evolving to be more and more human. It consists of all non-humans, each represented by an asterisk, below, with around a million individuals in the population:

Gen 1 ****************************************** (+ a million more or so)

Call that Generation 1 (Gen1)

Now, in Gen 2, A hominid is born whom God gives a soul. This is the first human, Adam. Along with his human wife, Eve (who also has a soul), generation 2 looks like this, with humans marked in blue :

Gen 2 ******************************************* (+ a million more or so)

Now, Adam and Eve have many kids, and each of them is human, has inherited original sin, and is marked in blue. Polygenism is avoided because only Adam and Eve are human, thus we are descended from a single pair of humans, but not a single pair of ancestors.

Gen 3 ***************************************** (+ a million more or so)

Of course, a child of whom one parent has original sin will also inherit original sin, and be human, so, like the descendants of Jacob, the descendants of Adam and Eve increase with each generation, EVEN IF THE WHOLE POPULATION ISN'T INCREASING:

Gen 4 *************************************** (+ a million more or so)

So even after just a few generations, most of the nearby hominids are descendants of Adam, and are human, and over time this will spread to the whole population.

Gen 7 ********************************************* (+ a million more or so)

So fast forwarding just a few thousand years, the whole population is human.

Gen 47 **********************************(+ a million more or so)

Notice that at no time was the whole breeding population limited to just two individuals. See Dr. Ayayla's statement:

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. Modern genetic analysis allows us to conclude that through millions of years of our history, there have been always at any time at the very least several thousand individuals. So we don't descend from a single pair. (Dr. Francisco Ayala)
​

See? We don't descend from only a single pair of ancestors, as the good Dr. is pointing out. At the same time, we can be descended from a single pair of humans, as shown above.

mark, is it more clear now?

Papias

 

[mark kennedy]

Metherion wrote:



Yes. Thank you Metherion. As I've pointed out before, I admitted that I didn't fully understand mark's point, and then went on to clarify that mark was saying that human ancestors (as shown on the cranial capacity graph, such as Homo habilis) had devolved into modern chimpanzees.

I am saying, as I have continually said, that Homo habilis are chimpanzee ancestors and you know it.

Note that mark still hasn't clarified which he's talking about, so even now, it is still quite possible, from what we know of mark's position, that mark thinks humans (such as archaic Homo sapiens, which are on that graph, and who we'd consider human) devolved into chimps, since he won't specifiy which of the human ancestors on the graph he thinks devolved into chimps.

Again, they are not human ancestors. The Taung Child and OH 64 come to mind but you haven't taken an interest in the fossils so why pretend you care?

Note also that because Homo habilis is an ancestor to us humans, mark is, wherever he puts his line, still saying that human ancestors devolved into modern chimps.

Not because but 'if' they are human ancestors. You just love begging the question of proof on your hands and knees don't you?

To supplement my last post (which mark still hasn't replied to), it crossed my mind that perhaps the illustration below will help mark understand ancestry.

I respond in every post to your frivolous trolling tactics.

Notice that at no time was the whole breeding population limited to just two individuals. See Dr. Ayayla's statement:

We know that our ancestors were never at any time just two individuals. Modern genetic analysis allows us to conclude that through millions of years of our history, there have been always at any time at the very least several thousand individuals. So we don't descend from a single pair. (Dr. Francisco Ayala)​

Until you get all the way back to Adam and Eve, then it must be two according to the dogma of the RCC and Holy Scripture.

​

See? We don't descend from only a single pair of ancestors, as the good Dr. is pointing out. At the same time, we can be descended from a single pair of humans, as shown above.

mark, is it more clear now?

Papias

You will be clear when chimpanzees fly a man to the moon. Here's a question for you, 'Where are the chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record'?

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Papias]

mark wrote:

I am saying, as I have continually said, that Homo habilis are chimpanzee ancestors and you know it.

I know that you have said that Homo habilis, and other apemen, are chimp ancestors and not human ancestors - even though I'm sure you recognize that many Homo habilis fossils has a cranial capacity well outside the range for chimps.

I'm trying to get a straight answer out of mark as to which apemen he considers chimp ancestors. Just Homo habilis? What about Homo erectus? Other Homo? Since mark has refused to give a straight answer on so much of my last post, let's call that #1. mark, for those below that you don't consider chimp ancestors, do you consider them then human ancestors?


Here it is again for your reference:

#2:

mark wrote:

I have shown you explicit statements of the current Pope with regards to Creation being inextricably linked to salvation, the resurrection and the inescapable historicity of the Genesis narratives.

I'm still waiting for a statement from the current Holy Father that Genesis needs to be interpreted as history. I think I've asked mark what his basis is for this at least twice now.

I have shown you explicit statements of the current Pope with regards to Creation being inextricably linked to salvation, the resurrection and the inescapable historicity of the Genesis narratives. All points of doctrine theistic evolutionists commonly deny, dismissing them as figurative.

#3 I asked if, based on your quote posted in post #42, if you are saying that theistic evolution supporters believe the resurrection as figurative. Are you?

To date, you are the rare exception to the evolutionist main stream that regards Adam as figurative, both in Genesis and Romans. Where are your cohorts, supporters or those in agreement with you on this point? Theistic evolutionists have argued venomously against me on this point, especially with regards to a literal Adam and original sin. You on the other hand have taken a minority few that has left you in a no man's land where Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists are opposed to various aspects of your position.

Does it get lonely out there all by yourself?

#4 mark, in post #42 I gave three additional theistic evolution sources that describe Adam as the literal first human, not figurative, the transitional ape whom God gave a soul. That's in addition to all the quotes I've shown from the Holy Father that also support this. You again ignored my point. Do you now admit that I'm not all alone in this position, as you claimed above? mark, where do you think I learned this from? Do you think I'm so intelligent and original as to have come up with this brilliant idea myself? Of course not - I was taught this in Sunday School, just as tens of millions of other Catholics have been taught.

#5 Do you understand, such as in the case of Abraham or the case of Adam, that a large population of humans can all have a pair of people in their ancestry, without that pair ever being the only two individuals alive during their lifetimes? And do you see why this shows that Dr. Ayayla's statement is fully consistent with the transitional ape Adam?

#6:
Do you understand that Mendelian genetics is completely irrelevant to the reason why Dr. Ayayla's statement is completely consistent with the transitional ape/human view of the historical Adam? It would work the same if there were no Mendelian genetics. This is another point you have ignored.

Until you get all the way back to Adam and Eve, then it must be two according to the dogma of the RCC and Holy Scripture.

#7 It must be two HUMANS, not just two in the breeding population. Would you like to back up your assertion that the RCC dogma allows for no more than two in the breeding population, or would you like to retract your statement? As we saw with Abraham, all Jews are descended from Abraham, yet Abraham and Sarah were not the only two living individuals alive at the time. The same goes for Adam/Eve, who are the ancestors of us all, and the first humans, even though there were many others in the breeding population of transitional apemen at the time.

Here's a question for you, 'Where are the chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record'?

mark, we have tons of chimp ancestors in the fossil record. You seem to think that it's somehow significant that we don't have any in the past 6 million years, but in the scale of 4,600 million years, a mere 6 is nothing. We have plenty of likely fossil chimp ancestors like Pierolapithecus, Proconsul, Notharctus, Eomaia, and so on. #8 Do you admit now that we have plenty of fossils of chimp ancestors?

Papias

 

[Papias]

bump for mark, who was looking for examples of fossils of chimp ancestors, which are listed above.

Papias

 

[Joshua0]

1) Darwinian Evolution governs the development of life forms on this planet that is not an artifact of the Earth.

Artifacts are man made items that are very different from the fossil record. There was a radical increase in artifacts around 40,000 years ago. It was at this time that modern man moved north into an area where Neanderthal had been living. Over time modern man replaced Neanderthals.

Something like this happened 4,000 years ago at the time of Abraham when God give Him and his descendants the area now known as Israel. Also God made provision for Abrahams children though Hagar and her son Ishmael. "And also of the son of the bonds woman, I will make a nation also, because he {is} thy seed. Gen. 21:13" The descendants of Sarah and the descendants of Hagar still fight today, even though they both call Abraham their father.