Human Evolution

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
So, if you have a job that takes 12 man-days, you could hire 4 people and get it done in 3 days. Or hire 12 people and get it done tomorrow. Or hire -12 people and get it done yesterday? ;)
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
One thing God cannot do is lie. Whatever he says becomes reality. If he said grass is black it would all turn black. I don't know why God would ever want 2 plus 2 to equal anything but four so the question is moot. Could he change math? I don't know when I finally get the chance to ask him that's not going to be something I am worried about.
The question isn't whether God wants 2 + 2 to equal 10. The question is whether God has the power to make 2 + 2 =10. I see you evaded the question.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Does God have the power to make 2 plus 2 equal 10.

You evaded the question. Please answer.
Your question is bogus. We've gone far enough with this silliness.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
I have told you many, many times that I disagree. But you simply ignore that I disagree and state it as though it is something we all agree on.

Again, Hod is the sum total of all physical phenomena needed to make the phenomena that caused the universe. It can be far more than just mechanical facts.



Hod is the sum total of all that is needed.

If what is needed is forces plus physics plus other laws, than the combination of that is Hod.

Your God is also subject to the laws of math. You know that. You know that God cannot make 2+ 2 = 10, yes?

I am going to assume that you know your God does not have the power to make 2 + 2 = 10 until you state that you think he has that power.
It's amazing to me that you would think this line of reasoning valid. You propose a logical self-contradiction and assume that it is a question of power or ability that is or is not limited by the impossibility. Enough already!
 
  • Agree
Reactions: AV1611VET
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You say, "You said that God invented mathematics". Well, no. I think I said that God 'invented' math. If you will remember, I always, (if I remember to), put 'invented' in scare quotes there, to show it is not a word I feel like does justice to the notion I wish to convey.

You contend, then, that basic fact —what is— has power over first cause, quite apart from being caused by first cause. That is faulty logic. If God is first cause, HE is basic fact, He is the cause of ALL other things, and is not subject to anything from outside himself. As he is the cause of logic and existence and all fact, he has no interest in creating something that does not exist, such as logically self-contradictory notions to which we might attribute valid substance.

I happily admit my words do not do the job in this kind of thing. Words don't fit the comprehension of them, nor does the comprehension fit the reality of them. You want me to ride in your vehicle with you in the driver's seat. No. You probably think you have a destination in mind, or maybe you want to hit a pothole or two, to shake me up. But you are going nowhere with this. Your vehicle is bogus. It is logically impossible for 2+2 to equal 10. Show me why God would want to make 2+2 equal 10 and what it would mean if he did so, and I might consider your POV. The whole notion is silly. It has no power. And God lacks no power.

You are letting words drive your narrative.

We need to draw this to a close. Here is my summary.

Leading physicists have concluded that our universe likely began by the Big Bang that was caused by cosmic inflation and quantum effects. What caused cosmic inflation and quantum effects? I contend that there are 3 possibilities, which I have somewhat facetiously named God, Hod, and Nod. God has a mind. Hod is the set of all phenomena that intrinsically exist that together caused the inflation and other effects that caused the universe. And Nod is just a special case of Hod, where Nod is as close to nothing as it is possible to get. I will confine the options here to Hod or God.

Hod consists of things like innate physics and innate mathematics that just are. God consists of anything innate that just always is, plus mind, and possibly plus other things such as omnipotence.

You have argued that the only possible creator is God, that this God is the "inventor" of math, and is omnipotent. (The scare quotes on the word inventor are yours. You specifically quibble with calling God the inventor without the scare quotes, but you do state that he is the "inventor" of math if you use scare quote. This quibble, in my mind, shows the utter obfuscation and futility in your position.)

So is 2 + 2 = 4 a fact that just is and could not possibly be changed? You seem to argue that God had the power to invent this to be otherwise, such as 2 + 2 =10, but then you also seem to argue that God did not have the power to invent this to be otherwise. When I ask for clarification as to whether you think God had the power to change 2 + 2 to equal something else, you evade the question.

Hod could simply be the sum of all phenomena that somehow exist, including the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. Hod could conceivably create universes. What are the odds? Suppose there is one chance in a billion billion that Hod, operating over a space a billion billion times the size of our universe for a billion billion years, could create a universe with life. Fine. Hod has infinite amount of time to act. And a miniscule number times infinity is still infinity. So however remote the odds are that Hod could do it, given eternity, Hod could create an infinite number of universes.

We are in one of those universes. I can (and often do) look at myself as a conscious being in that universe and say, "Wow! How did that happen?" Perhaps the answer is that Hod acted for eternity.

You may think that God is more likely than Hod as the creator, for God has a mind. Understood, but having a mind adds another complexity. How can a mind possibly store memories if there is no substance to arrange to store those memories? That is how all memories we know of are stored: by arranging some substance to store those memories.

So, does the source of creation really need a mind if an infinite number of years will work just as well?

You have tried to argue that God is more likely than Hod, for God as you define him is all powerful, and the creator needs to be all powerful. But why does a being need to be all powerful to create our universe? All such a being would need is the power to create this universe. It is totally logical to postulate that a God or Hod created our universe, while in the meantime, other Gods or Hods were creating other universes in a totally different realm that had no possible interaction with our universe. Such a creator would not be all powerful. There is no logical necessity that the creator of our universe was omnipotent.

So I conclude that it could have been God or Hod. God is more complicated, and needs to somehow have a mind without a physical substance available. Hod is just a simplified version of God that would have all the power to create our universe. Either is possible.

With that, I draw our discussion to a close. Thanks for your input.
 
Upvote 0

Mark Quayle

Monergist; and by reputation, Reformed Calvinist
Supporter
May 28, 2018
13,005
5,621
68
Pennsylvania
✟780,875.00
Country
United States
Faith
Reformed
Marital Status
Widowed
Leading physicists have concluded that our universe likely began by the Big Bang that was caused by cosmic inflation and quantum effects. What caused cosmic inflation and quantum effects? I contend that there are 3 possibilities, which I have somewhat facetiously named God, Hod, and Nod. God has a mind. Hod is the set of all phenomena that intrinsically exist that together caused the inflation and other effects that caused the universe. And Nod is just a special case of Hod, where Nod is as close to nothing as it is possible to get. I will confine the options here to Hod or God.

Hod consists of things like innate physics and innate mathematics that just are. God consists of anything innate that just always is, plus mind, and possibly plus other things such as omnipotence.

You have argued that the only possible creator is God, that this God is the "inventor" of math, and is omnipotent. (The scare quotes on the word inventor are yours. You specifically quibble with calling God the inventor without the scare quotes, but you do state that he is the "inventor" of math if you use scare quote. This quibble, in my mind, shows the utter obfuscation and futility in your position.)

The God I speak of is not the god you define as "possibly plus other things such as omnipotence". Nor does he "consist of" his attributes. He IS omnipotent, and his attributes are our mental constructions of what he is like; they are what we attribute to him. He does not consist of them.

The scare quotes around 'inventor' [of math, etc] does not demonstrate anything expect the inability of human words to represent the facts concerning God.

So is 2 + 2 = 4 a fact that just is and could not possibly be changed? You seem to argue that God had the power to invent this to be otherwise, such as 2 + 2 =10, but then you also seem to argue that God did not have the power to invent this to be otherwise. When I ask for clarification as to whether you think God had the power to change 2 + 2 to equal something else, you evade the question.

I hit that bogus question square on its fake head.

Hod could simply be the sum of all phenomena that somehow exist, including the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. Hod could conceivably create universes. What are the odds? Suppose there is one chance in a billion billion that Hod, operating over a space a billion billion times the size of our universe for a billion billion years, could create a universe with life. Fine. Hod has infinite amount of time to act. And a miniscule number times infinity is still infinity. So however remote the odds are that Hod could do it, given eternity, Hod could create an infinite number of universes.

God is not a summation of his parts nor of his abilities. Hod is. Hod is not omnipotent, self-existent, nor the source of all other things besides himself. Hod is a silly notion, at best. You make up something bogus and expect it to be taken seriously as a proposition.

We are in one of those universes. I can (and often do) look at myself as a conscious being in that universe and say, "Wow! How did that happen?" Perhaps the answer is that Hod acted for eternity.

You may think that God is more likely than Hod as the creator, for God has a mind. Understood, but having a mind adds another complexity. How can a mind possibly store memories if there is no substance to arrange to store those memories? That is how all memories we know of are stored: by arranging some substance to store those memories.

So, does the source of creation really need a mind if an infinite number of years will work just as well?

You have tried to argue that God is more likely than Hod, for God as you define him is all powerful, and the creator needs to be all powerful. But why does a being need to be all powerful to create our universe? All such a being would need is the power to create this universe. It is totally logical to postulate that a God or Hod created our universe, while in the meantime, other Gods or Hods were creating other universes in a totally different realm that had no possible interaction with our universe. Such a creator would not be all powerful. There is no logical necessity that the creator of our universe was omnipotent.

So I conclude that it could have been God or Hod. God is more complicated, and needs to somehow have a mind without a physical substance available. Hod is just a simplified version of God that would have all the power to create our universe. Either is possible.

With that, I draw our discussion to a close. Thanks for your input.

Your underskirting of dependence on materialism is showing. Why would God, of whose substance I hope you can admit to no comprehension, need material substance to store memories? It is as ludicrous a notion as to say that first cause is subject to anything else from outside itself.

If there are multiple universes, or anything else that is, besides God himself, God made it. If there are multiple universes he is not just the god of this one. You really have a silly notion you keep trying to promote, and trying to represent God, omnipotent first cause, as a lesser being. Again, you are beating a strawman, to make all these claims supposedly about God.

But ok, I'm just as happy as you to quit haggling over nonsense propositions.
 
Upvote 0

JosephZ

Well-Known Member
Mar 25, 2017
2,992
2,859
Davao City
Visit site
✟226,464.00
Country
Philippines
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Is Allah the same God as Jehovah? I heard that when missionaries go to Arab countries they tell the people in Arabic that Allah so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son.
if I type John 3:16 (KJV) into google translate and ask for Arabic I get:

laan alleh ahab alalem hakada wabdhel abneh al-wahid lekki la yehlik kel minn eumen bahab bel tecon leh hayat abdia.

And right there it is: Alleh. What word should missionaries to Arab countries be using for God? How do you know that word you select is on God's approved list of acceptable names to use?
You're correct, missionaries that go to Arab countries or to people groups that speak Arabic use the word "Allah" when talking about God. Allah is used by Arabic speaking Jews and Christians to refer to the God of Israel and they have been since before Islam ever existed.
John 3 16 arabic 2.jpg

God is known as "Tuhan" among the people group I work with and Jesus is known as "Isa." These are also the terms I also use when speaking to them in their language.

“If you declare with your mouth, 'Jesus is Lord,' and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved” (Romans 10:9) English

"Bang kam magpasab'nnal in si Isa Panghulu'bi maka magkahagad toongan min deyom ataybi in iya bai pinakallum min kamatana e' Tuhan tantu kam lappasan sampay pinasodni deyom sulga." (Roma 10:9) Sinama

If a Sinama speaking person declares "si Isa Panghulu'bi" and believes in their heart that "Tuhan" raised Him from the dead would God reject them? Of course not; just as wouldn't with Arabic speakers calling Him Allah. God will approve of whatever name someone calls Him in their native tongue.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: doubtingmerle
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
As human cooperation and brainpower became ever more important, brains became larger, {etc}
...
And that is the beauty of the intelligence and social communication that had evolved. It allowed these humans to develop as a team, caring for each other and for the young. That led to longer childhoods; to larger brains; to more intelligence; to better communication and cooperation; and back around to longer childhoods and still larger brains. It was an endless upwards spiral. {etc}
Bunkum!:
Did the transition to complex societies in the Holocene drive a reduction in brain size? A reassessment of the DeSilva et al. (2021) hypothesis, Villmoare and Grabowski, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, July 2022:
Villmoare etal said:
With regards to testing the hypothesis in question, our analyses showed no changes in brain size associated with the transition to agriculture during the Holocene. Overall, our conclusion is that, given a dataset more appropriate to the research question, human brain size has been remarkably stable over the last 300 ka. Thus, hypotheses of recent change are not supported by the evidence (see also Beals et al., 1984; Henneberg, 1988; Ruff et al., 1997; DeSilva et al., 2021).
The notion of intelligence and social communication allowing 'these humans to develop as a team, caring for each other and for the young .. leading to larger brains .. upward spirals, {etc}', is not founded on the available evidence:
Villmoare etal said:
DeSilva et al. (2021) propose that human brain size has decreased, and offer innovative reasons why this may be so, primarily focusing on a model of “group level cognition.” Our analysis of these data fails to find a decrease in human brain size over the last few thousands of years. When the large sample sizes of the most recent human samples are adjusted for, the pattern disappears, and the arguments no longer need to be invoked.
The same rationale therefore applies for the belief in increased brain sizes, (therefore birth canal changes), over the last 300k years, (look at the data trend shown in the study), for which there is no evidence, as follows:
Villmoare etal said:
We argue that, when examining questions of micro-evolutionary change, the analysis and data need to be appropriate for the specific scale of that hypothesis. Further, the data need to be otherwise relevant for the hypothesis being tested (see Houle et al., 2011). Given that the adoption of agriculture and the transition to complex societies occurred in different times at different places, the samples need to be specific enough to test the hypothesis across different times and populations, which does not appear to be the case in this instance.
This thread was over, following the non-evidence based claims (beliefs) in post #1 and the narrative of your website story-telling.
 
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Bunkum!:
Did the transition to complex societies in the Holocene drive a reduction in brain size? A reassessment of the DeSilva et al. (2021) hypothesis, Villmoare and Grabowski, Frontiers in Ecology and Evolution, July 2022:
The notion of intelligence and social communication allowing 'these humans to develop as a team, caring for each other and for the young .. leading to larger brains .. upward spirals, {etc}', is not founded on the available evidence:
The same rationale therefore applies for the belief in increased brain sizes, (therefore birth canal changes), over the last 300k years, (look at the data trend shown in the study), for which there is no evidence, as follows:
This thread was over, following the non-evidence based claims (beliefs) in post #1 and the narrative of your website story-telling.
First, can you tell me, please, if you think humans evolved from a common ancestor with the chimp, or if you think that humans were created separately? Your post sure looks creationist, but, as usual, it is hard to understand your own views. You are quick to attack mainstream science, humanism, and atheism every chance you get, but it is not clear what you put in its place. What is your position?

The OP is based on a mainstream NOVA documentary which references the work of numerous leading scientists. If you agree that humans evolved, then you must admit that brain sizes in hominids have tripled. So I don't understand how you can erupt with cries of "Bunkum!" when I discuss that increase.

The article you quote involves a debate about changes of brain sizes during the Holocene, that is, the last 12,000 years. By contrast, the OP is dealing with the early hominids, a period that lasted 4 million years. Specifically, much of the relevant discussion of brain size in the NOVA documentary revolves around the fossil known as Turkana Boy, who lived about 1.5 million years ago. So why would you cite a study about brain size changes in the Holocene to refute a claim about hominids millions of years ago?

Regarding the discussion of the lack of brain size increases in later humans, that should come as no surprise. Pardon the pun, but the benefit of larger brains is not a no-brainer. Brains require huge resources in protein and calories. And in hominids, large brains necessitate extended childhoods for the brain to grow. So bigger is not necessarily better. The articles you mention suggest that, in the Holocene, increased use of language and civilization allowed for much greater usage of the shared brainpower of other humans, so, there was less need to use ever greater resources to grow ever bigger brains.

In conclusion, your studies certainly say nothing about hominid brains not increasing in size over millions of years. So no, you have not shown that this transition did not occur.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
This thread was over, following the non-evidence based claims (beliefs) in post #1 and the narrative of your website story-telling.
Why do you continue to attack my site as a story-telling site? I cite numerous quality scientific sites and the primary literature. I emphasize that I am basing conclusions on observation and reason, which is the essence of science.

I tell some personal stories of things that happened in my life, yes, but how does that negate everything I say? Are all scientists who give a little biographical information nothing more than narrative story-tellers?

Where I do tell the story of my religious life, I emphasize that, "I am not asking you to follow me. You have a mind of your own. You can decide for yourself. But perhaps you could learn from me." So no, my site is not simply a bunch of anecdotal stories as my primary evidence.

And no, you cannot just ignore the science discussed in the OP and the NOVA documentary just because I tell some biographical background at my site.

If you would rather discuss the content of my site, it might be best if you left a comment there rather than turning this thread into a discussion of my site.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
First, can you tell me, please, if you think humans evolved from a common ancestor with the chimp, or if you think that humans were created separately? Your post sure looks creationist, but, as usual, it is hard to understand your own views. You are quick to attack mainstream science, humanism, and atheism every chance you get, but it is not clear what you put in its place. What is your position?

The OP is based on a mainstream NOVA documentary which references the work of numerous leading scientists. If you agree that humans evolved, then you must admit that brain sizes in hominids have tripled. So I don't understand how you can erupt with cries of "Bunkum!" when I discuss that increase.

The article you quote involves a debate about changes of brain sizes during the Holocene, that is, the last 12,000 years. By contrast, the OP is dealing with the early hominids, a period that lasted 4 million years. Specifically, much of the relevant discussion of brain size in the NOVA documentary revolves around the fossil known as Turkana Boy, who lived about 1.5 million years ago. So why would you cite a study about brain size changes in the Holocene to refute a claim about hominids millions of years ago?

Regarding the discussion of the lack of brain size increases in later humans, that should come as no surprise. Pardon the pun, but the benefit of larger brains is not a no-brainer. Brains require huge resources in protein and calories. And in hominids, large brains necessitate extended childhoods for the brain to grow. So bigger is not necessarily better. The articles you mention suggest that, in the Holocene, increased use of language and civilization allowed for much greater usage of the shared brainpower of other humans, so, there was less need to use ever greater resources to grow ever bigger brains.

In conclusion, your studies certainly say nothing about hominid brains not increasing in size over millions of years. So no, you have not shown that this transition did not occur.
Shifting the goalposts. The section of your post, which I cited, used the term humans and not Hominids. (The term 'human' is a colloquial term used to refer to ourselves, ie: Homo Sapiens, which is exactly how you used it in the relevant opening sections of your story).
If you'd read the introduction of the Villmoare etal paper I refer to however, you'd see their explicitly stated, evidenced, context, in the very first paragraph. (Also note my underlines):
Villmoare etal said:
Introduction
Encephalization has long been understood to be a key adaptation in the human lineage, and over the last four million years species attributed to Australopithecus and Homo have shown demonstrable trends toward increased brain size. However, our understanding of past populations is limited by our reliance on the fossil record. For some poorly preserved species, we are currently dependent on a few or even a single cranium. This places limits on our ability to infer subtle changes in brain size, even as the broader trend of encephalization is clear.
And then in the second paragraph, their demonstrated and generalised point, is that speculative arguments asserting that the distribution of complex information amongst communicating humans in social settings, (ie: group level cognition), necessarily drives brain size changes, as a selection force, lacks evidence:
Villmoare etal said:
DeSilva et al. (2021) hypothesize that modern human brain size has decreased, starting at roughly 3,000 years ago. They offer a model in which directional selection for decreased brain size, and/or stabilizing selection for maintaining large brains, was relaxed due to the ability to store information externally in social groups. Under this model, which they analogize from ants, following the development of complex societies, the cumulative intelligence and knowledge of the social group acted to relax the strong forces of selection that had been present in earlier human populations. They propose that “group-level cognition may select for reduced brain size and/or adaptive brain size variation
... (which they then go on to demonstrate).

You repeat your theme in your specific text which I originally quoted, (the content of which is unevidenced), and are now relying on using different terms to change what you originally said .. which is yet just more evidence of intellectually dishonest behaviour.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
You repeat your theme in your specific text which I originally quoted, (the content of which is unevidenced), and are now relying on using different terms to change what you originally said .. which is yet just more evidence of intellectually dishonest behaviour.
My mistake. I see I repeatedly called them humans when I meant to say hominids. I have gone back and corrected the OP, and made a note at the bottom of the post indicating it was changed.

It should have been obvious from the context that I was talking about hominids, but if this confused you, I apologize for that. I fixed my mistake.

Hominids (our ancestors) underwent huge brain growth over about 3 million years. Homo Sapiens (humans) have had little change in brain size.

Now back to the question I asked you. I see that you did not tell us if you think humans evolved from a common ancestor with the chimp, or if you think that humans were created separately. Can you please answer this?
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

SelfSim

A non "-ist"
Jun 23, 2014
6,154
1,953
✟174,600.00
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
My mistake. I see I repeatedly called them humans when I meant to say hominids. I have gone back and corrected the OP, and made a note at the bottom of the post indicating it was changed.
Accepted.
doubtingmerle said:
It should have been obvious from the context that I was talking about hominids, but if this confused you, I apologize for that. I fixed my mistake.
The context is the issue at hand. Its up to you to express it accurately in order to get your meaning across, regardless of what I think it is. Its not my meaning that's being communicated .. its yours.
doubtingmerle said:
Hominids (our ancestors) underwent huge brain growth over about 3 million years. Homo Sapiens (humans) have had little change in brain size.
Accepted on the basis of the evidence consistent with that, provided in the Villmoare etal paper and elsewhere.
doubtingmerle said:
Now back to the question I asked you. I see that you did not tell us if you think humans evolved from a common ancestor with the chimp, or if you think that humans were created separately. Can you please answer this?
The ToE, along with LUCA, are science's best tested theories explaining how biology developed on this planet.

Expressing what I think would be completely inconsistent with the point I've been making throughout this thread, which is: What I think, or anybody else thinks, is completely irrelevant to the conclusions science draws from objective data. They're not stories, beliefs, or feelings.. they're inferences. Your question is simply the wrong question to be asking when it comes to science's position (especially when its about Objective Reality).
I even just demonstrated where this principle leads, using the Villmoare etal paper .. and you (appropriately) conceded because of what it showed.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

doubtingmerle

I'll think about it.
Supporter
Jan 28, 2003
9,703
2,335
Pennsylvania
Visit site
✟467,320.00
Country
United States
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The ToE, along with LUCA, are science's best tested theories explaining how biology developed on this planet.
Ok, so we both think evolution explains how biology developed. But my question was more specific. I asked if you agree with me that humans evolved from a common ancestor with the chimp. But I am not going to guess. (You hate when people guess what you are saying, yes? ;) ) Can you please answer directly?



Expressing what I think would be completely inconsistent with the point I've been making throughout this thread, which is: What I think, or anybody else thinks, is completely irrelevant to the conclusions science draws from objective data.
I am not asking what conclusion science draws. I know that answer. I would like to know what conclusions you draw.

I even just demonstrated where this principle leads, using the Villmoare etal paper .. and you (appropriately) conceded because of what it showed.

If it make you feel good that you convinced me that the human brain did not evolve in the last 12,000 years, fine, but I knew that all along. I am well aware that humans evolved from a common ancestor with chimps over millions of years. See, for instance, this thread-- Why are there still apes? and the link I mentioned several times here .
 
Upvote 0