Where do you stand on common ancestory and why?

[kenneth558]

Some time ago I started a thread in the creationist forum to gather perspective on common ancestory.

I'd like to open that discussion up to us down here.

I understand and hope that people will answer this from both their theological stance as well as any scientific data that swayed their opinion.

I hope that you will not simply answer the poll, but post and elaborate on your position.

I am particularly interested in this:

If man does share a common ancestor/s with primates and or every living thing on earth, does this conflict with scripture?

I'd also just like to clarify, that I do not make spiritual decisions based on these things (this has been insinuated to me.) I enjoy discussing the things I'm thinking and studying, and especially learning about resources I was not aware of.

Besides, I know every one is not of one camp of thought on this, but I'm interested to know how many camps there are.

(You can choose any or all that you agree with.)

Thanks,
Pats

Pats, with our scientific ability today to analyze genomes, the question of common descent should have been resoundingly answered by now to every critic's satisfaction. The debate should be over by now. But the very posting of your question shows that something is amiss in the world of molecular genetics.

If one were to scientifically construct a family tree of any particular species, human or otherwise, what biometric would be analyzed? DNA sequencing!!! NOT RNA nor protein sequencing! NOT morphological traits, nor any other PRODUCT of DNA! It is the DNA itself, and more specifically, the DNA sequencing that is used BY ITSELF to trace heritage. Given an array of DNA genomes, a family tree can be repeatably and accurately constructed for any species except those that receive genetic changes via infusion from the environment and from DNA fragments floating in their environment.

What this means is that the conjecture of common descent is totally without the scientific basis of DNA sequencing or everyone would be told about it. DNA sequencing proof of human descent from other primates simply does not exist! BTW, the same holds true for the vast majority of the rest of the biosphere. You should be able to lay out the various genomes and construct a 100% accurate family tree, evolution included, without resorting to tainting by the inclusion of morphologies. If you think I am wrong, take a college Organic Evolution course like I did. To say that they cannot support their phylogenies without resorting to morphologic factors is an understatement.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

If one were to scientifically construct a family tree of any particular species, human or otherwise, what biometric would be analyzed? DNA sequencing!!! NOT RNA nor protein sequencing! NOT morphological traits, nor any other PRODUCT of DNA! It is the DNA itself, and more specifically, the DNA sequencing that is used BY ITSELF to trace heritage. Given an array of DNA genomes, a family tree can be repeatably and accurately constructed for any species except those that receive genetic changes via infusion from the environment and from DNA fragments floating in their environment.

What this means is that the conjecture of common descent is totally without the scientific basis of DNA sequencing or everyone would be told about it. DNA sequencing proof of human descent from other primates simply does not exist! BTW, the same holds true for the vast majority of the rest of the biosphere. You should be able to lay out the various genomes and construct a 100% accurate family tree, evolution included, without resorting to tainting by the inclusion of morphologies. If you think I am wrong, take a college Organic Evolution course like I did. To say that they cannot support their phylogenies without resorting to morphologic factors is an understatement.

Here I responded to a post of yours that was very similar to the above.
I wrote:

Can you think of a reason or two why the molecular results of DNA, e.g. cytochrome c, have been used rather than the DNA itself?

(Starting with the fact that most animals haven't had their DNA sequenced...)

IOW, speciation events are said to be/have been morphologically-based, pheromone-based, well as chromosomally-based, etc. If that were true, why doesn't the DNA/chromosome level prove that out? There should be a whole lot more similarity in DNA and chromosomes between "nearest relatives".

And you make this statement based upon what?

Provide a citation that predicts the level of similarity for a particular well understood measurement, providing an explanation for this prediction based upon evolution.

humans/chimps, [] Instead, molecular biologists find as many genetic differences as they should be finding similarities, and only as many similarities as they should find differences.

So you are claiming that for e.g. human and chimps, there are grossly more differences than similarities?
Again by what measure?
And what paper has made this claim?
​

This time I would appreciate a response, not a hit and run.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

What this means is that the conjecture of common descent is totally without the scientific basis of DNA sequencing or everyone would be told about it. DNA sequencing proof of human descent from other primates simply does not exist! BTW, the same holds true for the vast majority of the rest of the biosphere. You should be able to lay out the various genomes and construct a 100% accurate family tree, evolution included, without resorting to tainting by the inclusion of morphologies. If you think I am wrong, take a college Organic Evolution course like I did. To say that they cannot support their phylogenies without resorting to morphologic factors is an understatement.



apparently you did not learn very much in this class.
for protein homologies and dna sequencing ARE used to build cladograms.

from: http://cnx.org/content/m11052/latest/

A phylogenetic tree is a graphical representation of the evolutionary relationship between taxonomic groups. The term phylogeny refers to the evolution or historical development of a plant or animal species, or even a human tribe or similar group. Taxonomy is the system of classifying plants and animals by grouping them into categories according to their similarities. A phylogenetic tree is a specific type of cladogram where the branch lengths are proportional to the predicted or hypothetical evolutionary time between organisms or sequences. Cladograms are branched diagrams, similar in appearance to family trees, that illustrate patterns of relatedness where the branch lengths are not necessarily proportional to the evolutionary time between related organisms or sequences. Bioinformaticians produce cladograms representing relationships between sequences, either DNA sequences or amino acid sequences. However, cladograms can rely on many types of data to show the relatedness of species. In addition to sequence homology information, comparative embryology, fossil records and comparative anatomy are all examples of the types of data used to classify species into phylogenic taxa. So, it is important to understand that the cladograms generated by bioinformatics tools are primarily based on sequence data alone. Given that, it is also true that sequence relatedness can be very powerful as a predictor of the relatedness of specie

 

[shernren]

Why can't man have dominion over the animals if he is an animal? Nobody argues that Jesus cannot rule humanity since He is a human. (As well as being God, of course.) The US constitution requires (AFAIK), not forbids, the President of the US to be a US citizen himself. Every king of Israel was himself an Israelite.

In fact, I find the statement that man is an animal helpful in my understanding of the Bible. Man is amphibious between the physical and spiritual realms. Consider a frog: it begins as a tadpole which can only live in water, and matures into a frog which can live both in water and outside it. In the same way God saw fit to create man through the processes of evolution and then elevate him to the status of a spiritual being in relationship and communion with Him. And one important philosophical implication of man being an animal is that man has a place in the ecosystem, and anything which endangers the ecosystem endangers him too. If humanity had learned this lesson much earlier we would have far less to worry about today.

Now, of course, I'm not saying that man is just an animal. But he is one indeed, as well as being so much more.

[EDIT: The "man is amphibious" metaphor isn't original to me. It was actually used by C.S. Lewis in The Screwtape Letters as Screwtape describes why humans go through cyclical ups-and-downs in their spiritual lives: because they are caught between this world and that, like a tadpole with legs. Though the whole frog thing was my extrapolation. So not all the credit to me. ]

 

[Pats]

Is God a bilaterally symmetrical hominid? I don't believe so. Image is not about physiology and biology but purpose. Humankind is to act and be in God's purpose, and I believe the scripture goes on to present story after story of humankind's attempts at pursuing that purpose.

Chaos, When I think of man being created in God's image, I agree that it is based on spiritual qualities and not physical ones.

It makes me wonder, though, if man is created in the image of God, and animals are not, how can we have come from animals? Does it make sense?

Why can't man have dominion over the animals if he is an animal? Nobody argues that Jesus cannot rule humanity since He is a human. (As well as being God, of course.) The US constitution requires (AFAIK), not forbids, the President of the US to be a US citizen himself. Every king of Israel was himself an Israelite.
........
Now, of course, I'm not saying that man is just an animal. But he is one indeed, as well as being so much more.

Now that does make sense. That's a good arguement.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

It makes me wonder, though, if man is created in the image of God, and animals are not, how can we have come from animals? Does it make sense?

Gen 2:7 Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

Gen 2:19 Out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field and every bird of the sky,

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

The Greek words in Hebrews for "soul" and "spirit" can be used interchangably, and this could merely be a poetic passage, but it at least opens the possibility that there is a difference between being alive and having a soul.

There are other verses I've seen used to argue that God gave us something different from / in addition to what he gave the animals.

My own pet theory (which is hardly unique) is that our physical bodies evolved to a point where God did something, perhaps gave us souls, that made us human, made us images of God.

He formed us out of dirt, then he made us living.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Pats, with our scientific ability today to analyze genomes, the question of common descent should have been resoundingly answered by now to every critic's satisfaction. The debate should be over by now. But the very posting of your question shows that something is amiss in the world of molecular genetics.

If one were to scientifically construct a family tree of any particular species, human or otherwise, what biometric would be analyzed? DNA sequencing!!!

I think it is worthwhile to point out that the Human Genome Project, and all the other genome projects being done, as well as the cytochrome-c and similar work that was done prior to the HGP, are not pursued to "prove" evolution. They are done, among various other reasons, to better understand evolution.

If you want an idea of what kind of research is going on, have a look at:
Genome Biology 2005, 6:207
http://eprints.ouls.ox.ac.uk/archive/00000854/01/furlong_2005.pdf

I have included various quotes and references to provide a timeline of sorts, but ultimately we simply haven't had time to do the sort of work necessary to provide even a skeleton tree of common descent.

While there have been 300 species (out of over 2 million species (there are over 15,000 genera of fungi, if you want to take a step up)) whose genomes have been "fully sequenced" there appear to be only around 9 "finished" sequences of animals.

"Back in the 1980s, I had the experience of trying to track down the cystic fibrosis gene. It took us about 10 years of very hard work to finally succeed at that endeavor. And there were probably 100 investigators involved and millions of dollars were spent on this enterprise. "

"Like Francis, I spent a decade looking for one gene. That gene cost hundreds of millions of dollars to actually find and sequence, and it was a combined effort of NIH funding and work funded by Merck."​

PRESS BRIEFING [] ON THE COMPLETION OF THE FIRST SURVEY
OF THE ENTIRE HUMAN GENOME, June 26, 2000
http://www.ostp.gov/html/00628_3.html

The first draft of the map of the gene containing parts of the human genome was finished in 2000, the final version, 99% of the genes at a 99.99% accuracy was finished in 2003.
press release
International Consortium Completes Human Genome Project,
April 14, 2003
http://www.genome.gov/11006929
as of 2002

The complete genomes of three animals have been sequenced by global research efforts: a nematode worm (Caenorhabditis elegans), an insect (Drosophila melanogaster), and a vertebrate (Homo sapiens).​

"The evolutionary position of nematodes"
Jaime E Blair1 , Kazuho Ikeo2 , Takashi Gojobori2 and S Blair Hedges1
1Astrobiology Research Center and Department of Biology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA 16802, USA
2Center for Information Biology, National Institute of Genetics, Mishima, Shizuoka-ken 411-8540, Japan
BMC Evolutionary Biology 2002, 2:7 doi:10.1186/1471-2148-2-7
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2148/2/7

Several genomes other than human have been finished, currently more than 300 genomes are fully sequenced​

Computational analyses of biological sequences -applications to antibody-based proteomics and gene family characterization
KTH, Biotechnology
2005-12-02
http://www.diva-portal.org/kth/abstract.xsql?dbid=527

These represent over 128 000 genes from nine fully sequenced animal genomes​

TreeFam: a curated database of phylogenetic trees of animal gene families.
Nucleic Acids Res. 2006 Jan 1;34(Database issue): D572-80
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1347480

So it would appear that while 300 species have been sequenced, the number that are in finished form is barely in double digits.

 

[LoG]

The Greek words in Hebrews for "soul" and "spirit" can be used interchangably, and this could merely be a poetic passage, but it at least opens the possibility that there is a difference between being alive and having a soul.

Soul is the seat of the emotions and feelings whereas the spirit is something that allows man to have a relationship with God. The unconverted man lives by his emotions and/or intellect whereas those in Christ through the Sword of the Word learn to discern between their feelings and the leading of God through their spirit.

This spirit is what seperates us from the animals who have soul but not spirit.

 

[kenneth558]

Here I responded to a post of yours that was very similar to the above.
I wrote:

Can you think of a reason or two why the molecular results of DNA, e.g. cytochrome c, have been used rather than the DNA itself?

(Starting with the fact that most animals haven't had their DNA sequenced...)

And you make this statement based upon what?

Provide a citation that predicts the level of similarity for a particular well understood measurement, providing an explanation for this prediction based upon evolution.

So you are claiming that for e.g. human and chimps, there are grossly more differences than similarities?
Again by what measure?
And what paper has made this claim?
​

This time I would appreciate a response, not a hit and run.

Pats, do you have the same questions as these? I was answering yours, not Roberts. It becomes a matter of me just wanting to dialog with those who seem honestly seeking the truth.

Actually, let me be truthful that I'm more interested in packing for my 3400 mile trip tomorrow than dialoging with you right now, Roberts. I'm sure I'll be very interested in responding to you when I get settled in after my trip....

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Roberts. I'm sure I'll be very interested in responding to you when I get settled in after my trip....

I'll be waiting.

 

[Pats]

Hebrews 4:12 is a hottly debated verse that has been taken to be saying a great deal many things. Taking it into context is vital so we don't all these seperate theories running around... however... it's most of them are not all that central to this topic.
Ken, I think Robert is making a decent arguement, yes. I would definately be interested in hearing your response when you have time. I lurk in these threads much more than I respond. For starters, I don't always feel I have anything intellegant enough to say...I was taught the Bible from a very narrow minded perspective. It's time for me to branch out.
I've studied other theologies, but always from the point of view of what is right about mine and wrong about theirs. Same with origins theology and science. This is the way the conservative Southern Baptist school I was raised in treated our education.
Anyway, if all living animals on earth were formed out of dirt, what difference does it make if God formed the first man in the dirt and raised him up seperatedly or if we evolved from an ape like species that came from dirt?
One thing I do feel very strongly about, more and more as I mature and grow is this:
It is important not to read too much into scripture. Reading things in scripture that aren't there is harmful. For instance... It is a common conservative-Christian teaching that depression is "a sin." Let me just say, this can be a very confusing concept for some one who is clinically diagnosed with acute depression and is in physical need of medication along with therapy to help them out of this "sin."
I bring this up because, I would rather leave a personal theology vauge than put words in God's mouth, especially on an issue that could potentially cause harm.
/end of rant

 

[rmwilliamsll]

Soul is the seat of the emotions and feelings whereas the spirit is something that allows man to have a relationship with God. The unconverted man lives by his emotions and/or intellect whereas those in Christ through the Sword of the Word learn to discern between their feelings and the leading of God through their spirit.

This spirit is what seperates us from the animals who have soul but not spirit.

You are describing the tripartite division in theological anthropology. It has been a very minority viewpoint in the history of the church and is today strongly associated with the heretical movement of Witness Lee/Watchman Nee's little/local church. There have been very few theologicans teaching it, Andrew Murray is one of the very few i am familiar with.

It is not necessarily heretical but it has been Biblically refuted well in many writings, see Hodge's Systematic Theology for an example.

 

[chaoschristian]

The unconverted man lives by his emotions and/or intellect whereas those in Christ through the Sword of the Word learn to discern between their feelings and the leading of God through their spirit.

This is familiar enough teaching.

Soul is the seat of the emotions and feelings whereas the spirit is something that allows man to have a relationship with God.

This spirit is what seperates us from the animals who have soul but not spirit.

However, are not. Seriously intrigued and not asking for a dissertation, how do you arrive at these points?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Hebrews 4:12 is a hottly debated verse that has been taken to be saying a great deal many things. Taking it into context is vital so we don't all these seperate theories running around... however... it's most of them are not all that central to this topic.
[]
One thing I do feel very strongly about, more and more as I mature and grow is this:
It is important not to read too much into scripture.

Reading things in scripture that aren't there is harmful. For instance... It is a common conservative-Christian teaching that depression is "a sin." Let me just say, this can be a very confusing concept for some one who is clinically diagnosed with acute depression and is in physical need of medication along with therapy to help them out of this "sin."

<sigh>
<hugs offered>

I bring this up because, I would rather leave a personal theology vauge than put words in God's mouth, especially on an issue that could potentially cause harm.
/end of rant

I fear I'm not very good at that, I do try to make it clear that I am speculating.

Just to be clear I was just tossing out the Hebrews quote, I consider all working out of deep details of theology and of God's methods of doing things to be speculative and not to be taken tooooo seriously.

Else you end up with wars

Peace be with you,
Robert the Pilegrim

 

[LoG]

It has been a very minority viewpoint in the history of the church and is today strongly associated with the heretical movement of Witness Lee/Watchman Nee's little/local church. There have been very few theologicans teaching it, Andrew Murray is one of the very few i am familiar with.

Huh, you are honestly the first christian person I have ever heard to say that man isn't a tripart being. A quick Google search didn't turn up much in the way of rebuttals on the viewpoint and what was there seems to be mainly from some supposedly following Calvin.

Doesn't seem like it is a minority view considering the number of positive hits and the lack of negative ones.

 

[chaoschristian]

You are describing the tripartite division in theological anthropology. It has been a very minority viewpoint in the history of the church and is today strongly associated with the heretical movement of Witness Lee/Watchman Nee's little/local church. There have been very few theologicans teaching it, Andrew Murray is one of the very few i am familiar with.

It is not necessarily heretical but it has been Biblically refuted well in many writings, see Hodge's Systematic Theology for an example.

I didn't see this before I posted my questions. Will take note and make a point to read up on this.

 

[rmwilliamsll]

I didn't see this before I posted my questions. Will take note and make a point to read up on this.

it is a tough topic to study online. all of the tripartite sites are witness lee/watchman neeites. it is their issue.

hodge on tri/bi partite anthropology is at:
http://www.theresolved.com/downloads/theology2.pdf
the trichotomy discussion starts on pg 56 in this file.

while searching for a useful introductory essay on the topic i found:
http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:...otomy+tripartite+man&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=8
this is the htmlize version, there is a pdf within the url.

There is, perhaps, no greater illustration of this than the popular notion
of trichotomy. Rejected by virtually all major theologians in all streams of the Christian tradition
as a speculative Greek philosophical notion rather than a biblical conception, trichotomy is very
likely the reigning notion of human nature in American evangelical circles today.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

hodge on tri/bi partite anthropology is at:
http://www.theresolved.com/downloads/theology2.pdf
the trichotomy discussion starts on pg 56 in this file.

Thanks.

 

[jereth]

Jereth's 2 cents:

- I'm with rmwilliamsll that tripartite view is a minority and biblically unsupported view. It is associated with the heretical teaching that the Holy Spirit becomes a part of our essential nature when we convert to Christianity.
- Bipartite view is the most common Christian view, but it is based on the Greek philosophy of Plato, "modernised" by Descartes. It is not biblical.
- There is a strong move among evangelical scholars towards a unitary or monistic view of human nature. This fits very well with Theistic Evolutionism. If man evolved from primates, it is very unlikely he has an immaterial component to his nature.

 

[gluadys]

Jereth's 2 cents:

- I'm with rmwilliamsll that tripartite view is a minority and biblically unsupported view. It is associated with the heretical teaching that the Holy Spirit becomes a part of our essential nature when we convert to Christianity.
- Bipartite view is the most common Christian view, but it is based on the Greek philosophy of Plato, "modernised" by Descartes. It is not biblical.
- There is a strong move among evangelical scholars towards a unitary or monistic view of human nature. This fits very well with Theistic Evolutionism. If man evolved from primates, it is very unlikely he has an immaterial component to his nature.

Or at least an immaterial component which is separable from his physical being.

What do you think of the view that all material entities are also spiritual entities? That there is a range of spiritual being which matches in diversity the range of material being such that each entity from quarks to quasars, not to mention all living things, have a spiritual aspect appropriate to their physical aspect?

This is the proposal of Teilhard de Chardin.