4th Century St.Augustine Exposes Ape-To-Man Hoax.

Status
Not open for further replies.

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It is germane to the OP and thread though, in that the OP claims Darwin to be heir of an ancient tradition. He is, as he is a biologist - a discipline founded by Aristotle, who Darwin both read and admired. Further, those that claim Darwin ignorant of ancient authors is doing him a profound disservice, and he himself would likely be highly insulted by such claims of his lack of education. Classical writers were the cornerstone of education in Darwin's day, after all.

Please don't get me wrong. I'm not poo pooing the study of the Classics that men (and some women) of that era. I'm merely noting that given the content of Origin and Descent was rooted in Darwin's observations and the writings of his fellow, contemporary scientists, the influence of Aristotle or any other writer of Antiquity would be small, especially when compared with the influence of the Classics on the American Founding Fathers.
 
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Please don't get me wrong. I'm not poo pooing the study of the Classics that men (and some women) of that era. I'm merely noting that given the content of Origin and Descent was rooted in Darwin's observations and the writings of his fellow, contemporary scientists, the influence of Aristotle or any other writer of Antiquity would be small, especially when compared with the influence of the Classics on the American Founding Fathers.
You are wrong though. Aristotle's influence on contemporary Biology in the 19th century was huge. His calls for empiric observation and active dissection was what was leading the discipline forward. This is the whole point of Georges Cuvier and the dispute on cuttlefish anatomy. People were actively investigating his claims, and more often than not confirming them; and actively applying his methods of patient observation and dissection, as Darwin did as well. It is just that Aristotle's influence is so pervasive in biology that people fail to notice it. It is the equivalent of saying that Hawking shows little clear influence of Newton, so is patently false. As I said, Darwin and contemporaries are on record praising and reading Aristotle and although they used different categorisations and later methodologies as well, broadly applied his precepts and debated his points.

Evolution by Natural Selection is nothing short of looking at the telos of certain animal parts, and trying to determine a way this could come about. This is very much an Aristotlean construction at heart, though framed in different terms.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

FrumiousBandersnatch

Well-Known Member
Mar 20, 2009
15,258
8,056
✟326,229.00
Faith
Atheist
4th Century St.Augustine Exposes Ape-To-Man Hoax

Ever since I was a kid in school I was taught that Darwin was the first man who discovered our alleged ape to man origin. This is something that is drilled into our minds since our youth. But what would happen if it were historically presented that Darwin's philosophy which teaches that monkeys, apes and humans belong to the same pedigree existed long before Darwin? Would that not prove that evolution is ancient pantheist religion?

Today people think Darwin was some great scientist who proved man evolved from apes. But this careless thinking avoids the reality that what came down to us from Darwinian assumptions had been an ancient mystical belief long before Augustine's time. Here, 4th century Augustine is speaking about the origin and diversity of humans and some myths which have come about since ancient times.

City of God: Book XVI, chapter 8, p.663 (Penguin Classics translation),

"Some years ago, but certainly in my time, a man was born in the East with a double set of upper parts, but a single set of the lower limbs. That is, he had two heads, two chests, and four arms, but only one belly and two feet, as if he were one man. And he lived long enough for the news of his case to attract many sightseers.
In fact, it would be impossible to list all the human infants very unlike those who, without any doubt, were their parents. Now it cannot be denied that these derive ultimately from that one man; and therefore the same is true of all those races which are reported to have deviated as it were, by their divergences in bodily structure, from the normal course of nature followed by the majority, or practically the whole of mankind. If these races are included in the definition of 'human', that is, if they are rational and mortal animals, it must be admitted that they trace their lineage from that same one man, the first father of all mankind. This assumes, of course, the truth of the stories about the divergent features of those races, and their great differences from one another and from us. The definition is important; for if we did not know monkeys, long tailed apes and chimpanzees are not men but animals, those natural historians who plume themselves on their collection of curiosities might pass them off on us as races of men, and get away with such nonsense."

City of God, Marcus Dods translation:

"Some years ago, quite within my own memory, a man was born in the East, double his upper, but single his lower half--having two heads, two chests, four hands, but one body and two feet like a ordinary man ; and he lived so long that many had an opportunity of seeing him. But who could enumerate all the human births that have differed widely from their ascertained parents? As, therefore, no one will deny that these are all descended from from that one man, so all the races which are reported to have diverged in bodily appearance from the usual course which nature generally or almost universally preserves, if they are embraced in that definition of man as rational and mortal animals, unquestionably trace their pedigree to that one first father of all. We are supposing these stories about various races who differ from one another and from us to be true ; but possibly they are not ; for if we were not aware that apes, and monkeys, and sphinxes are not men, but beasts, those historians would possibly describe them as races of men, and flaunt with impunity their false and vainglorious discoveries."

Charles Darwin would be the natural historian who would entertain the false theory which placed man in the same pedigree as the moneys and apes.

Also interesting is how there is a Hindu legend of the vanara who are said to be ape men. So we do find an ape man myth in ancient history.
View attachment 250630
Darwin wasn't famous for being the first to suggest common descent - that idea had been around a long time. People are wrong to think Darwin proved that man evolved from apes. What he did was identify a process by which the diversity of species could be explained.

I don't follow how showing that monkeys, apes and humans share a common ancestor would make evolution a pantheist religion - it seems a non-sequitur. Can you explain your reasoning?
 
  • Informative
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
4th Century St.Augustine Exposes Ape-To-Man Hoax

Ever since I was a kid in school I was taught that Darwin was the first man who discovered our alleged ape to man origin. This is something that is drilled into our minds since our youth. But what would happen if it were historically presented that Darwin's philosophy which teaches that monkeys, apes and humans belong to the same pedigree existed long before Darwin? Would that not prove that evolution is ancient pantheist religion?

No. It would just prove that someone else previously already had that idea.
But to be fair, Darwin gets credit for unraveling the mechanism by which evolution happened. He gets credit for natural selection, primarily.

And, more importantly, it wouldn't change one iota of evolutionary biology.

Today people think Darwin was some great scientist who proved man evolved from apes.

No. Darwin was a scientist who gets credit for discovering the basic mechanism of natural selection.

But this careless thinking avoids the reality that what came down to us from Darwinian assumptions had been an ancient mystical belief long before Augustine's time. Here, 4th century Augustine is speaking about the origin and diversity of humans and some myths which have come about since ancient times.

City of God: Book XVI, chapter 8, p.663 (Penguin Classics translation),

"Some years ago, but certainly in my time, a man was born in the East with a double set of upper parts, but a single set of the lower limbs. That is, he had two heads, two chests, and four arms, but only one belly and two feet, as if he were one man. And he lived long enough for the news of his case to attract many sightseers.
In fact, it would be impossible to list all the human infants very unlike those who, without any doubt, were their parents. Now it cannot be denied that these derive ultimately from that one man; and therefore the same is true of all those races which are reported to have deviated as it were, by their divergences in bodily structure, from the normal course of nature followed by the majority, or practically the whole of mankind. If these races are included in the definition of 'human', that is, if they are rational and mortal animals, it must be admitted that they trace their lineage from that same one man, the first father of all mankind. This assumes, of course, the truth of the stories about the divergent features of those races, and their great differences from one another and from us. The definition is important; for if we did not know monkeys, long tailed apes and chimpanzees are not men but animals, those natural historians who plume themselves on their collection of curiosities might pass them off on us as races of men, and get away with such nonsense."

City of God, Marcus Dods translation:

"Some years ago, quite within my own memory, a man was born in the East, double his upper, but single his lower half--having two heads, two chests, four hands, but one body and two feet like a ordinary man ; and he lived so long that many had an opportunity of seeing him. But who could enumerate all the human births that have differed widely from their ascertained parents? As, therefore, no one will deny that these are all descended from from that one man, so all the races which are reported to have diverged in bodily appearance from the usual course which nature generally or almost universally preserves, if they are embraced in that definition of man as rational and mortal animals, unquestionably trace their pedigree to that one first father of all. We are supposing these stories about various races who differ from one another and from us to be true ; but possibly they are not ; for if we were not aware that apes, and monkeys, and sphinxes are not men, but beasts, those historians would possibly describe them as races of men, and flaunt with impunity their false and vainglorious discoveries."

Charles Darwin would be the natural historian who would entertain the false theory which placed man in the same pedigree as the moneys and apes.

Also interesting is how there is a Hindu legend of the vanara who are said to be ape men. So we do find an ape man myth in ancient history.
View attachment 250630

Nice story.

It doesn't seem relevant to evolution theory at large, or natural selection in particular.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Astrophile
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
But Augustine didn't mention anything about one man's guess. He spoke about a school of natural philosophy who taught that humans and apes belong to the same pedigree. But I thought Darwin was the first one.

Well you thought wrong then I guess.
As I'm sure you're wrong also about lots of other things.


Could it be that Darwin read a lot of pagan literature from the classical period of history and was influenced by what he read?

It could.

None of it impacts any well-established scientific theories though.


Newton was very influenced by Alchemy. It didn't stop him from nailing his laws of motions etc. Why would pagan literature stop Darwin from nailing natural selection?
 
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
Did you copy & paste what you wrote from a creationist web site by any chance? Do you even have the faintest idea what you are babbling about?

And what does what Augustine wrote have to do with evolution, since he clearly had not the faintest idea about evolution & natural selection, & was expressing nothing more than an opinion?
It has nothing to do with evolution, it's concerning the Ramayana, in Hindu Varna literature describing half man half beast mythical creatures. The stone age ape man, Homo habilis is such a mythical creature. I know exactly what I'm talking about, having spent a lot of time going over the genomic and paleontology literature and seldom use creationist sites as a source. Universal common descent by exclusively naturalistic causes is clearly contrived and Charles Darwin got most of his mythography skills from his grandfather:

"ORGANIC LIFE beneath the shoreless waves
Was born and nurs'd in Ocean's pearly caves;
First forms minute, unseen by spheric glass,
Move on the mud, or pierce the watery mass;
These, as successive generations bloom
New powers acquire, and larger limbs assume;
Whence countless groups of vegetation spring,
And breathing realms of fin, and feet, and wing.
(Erasmus Darwin, Temple of Nature)
This goddess graces the early pages:

H5043-L105455953.jpg

The woman in the depiction is the goddess Diana, Temple of Nature

The stone age ape man myth has no more to do with adaptive evolution then the the Ramayana, in Hindu Varna literature. Augustine took these mythical creatures as possibly historical, his conclusion is if they did exist then they were not human.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Upvote 0

TagliatelliMonster

Well-Known Member
Sep 22, 2016
4,292
3,373
44
Brugge
✟66,672.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Actually its the other way around. Most atheists think Darwin was a scientist...he was not. Most atheist believe Darwin was the one to (supposedly) discover the ape to man link. But it all came from ancient pagan beliefs.

Maybe you should stop pretending to know what other people believe about Darwin and ask them what they believe instead....
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

tas8831

Well-Known Member
May 5, 2017
5,611
4,000
55
Northeast
✟101,040.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The human brain is nearly tripple the size of that of chimpanzees that would represent a giant leap in adaptive evolution without precursors. Mutations are the worst possible explanation possible since existing genes never respond to mutationsvwell and at least 60 human brain related genes produced de novo. A regulatory gene 115 nucleotides long accepts 11 perfect sustitutions whe it accepts only 2 over nearly 400 million years.

Woweeee!!!!

I have totally NEVER heard those facts and figures on this forum before, surely they have never ever been discussed??!!

Darwinian Theator of the Mind: AKA Human Brain Evolution
Creationists caught lying for their religion - quote bombing
From Piltdown to the Stone Age Ape Man Myth

Not related to this topic, but a fun one, nonetheless:
'Gill slits' = 'ear holes'???
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Are you aware all he accomplished was two best selling books?
that is one of the most ignorant things I’ve seen on CF . The Darwin did decades of science experiments to come to the conclusions he did . OOS is a brief summary of those decades of experiments. We do have his papers you know
 
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

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
You are wrong though. Aristotle's influence on contemporary Biology in the 19th century was huge. His calls for empiric observation and active dissection was what was leading the discipline forward. This is the whole point of Georges Cuvier and the dispute on cuttlefish anatomy. People were actively investigating his claims, and more often than not confirming them; and actively applying his methods of patient observation and dissection, as Darwin did as well. It is just that Aristotle's influence is so pervasive in biology that people fail to notice it. It is the equivalent of saying that Hawking shows little clear influence of Newton, so is patently false. As I said, Darwin and contemporaries are on record praising and reading Aristotle and although they used different categorisations and later methodologies as well, broadly applied his precepts and debated his points.

Evolution by Natural Selection is nothing short of looking at the telos of certain animal parts, and trying to determine a way this could come about. This is very much an Aristotlean construction at heart, though framed in different terms.
Esoteric as always, I just wanted to add that natural selection was his theory of how things adapt gradually over time, thus gradualism. I think Thomas Malthus was the one who influenced him the most, describing how populations have a tendency to reproduce beyond the ability of resources to support them, bringing about a struggle for survival. Ultimately what Charles Darwin contributed to modern biology was the term, 'selection', there are so many kinds:
  • stabilizing selection
  • directional selection
  • diversifying selection
  • frequency-dependent selection
  • sexual selection
Then there's my personal favorite, Selection coefficient, kind of a cost and benefit analysis of a beneficial trait as it makes it's way to fixation. During the Modern Synthesis Darwinism was synthesized with Mendelian Genetics, primarily through population genetics. Genetics was growing by leaps and bounds at the time, Neodarwinism basically piggybacked in to biology following the rise of Mendelian genetics as it went from chromosome theory, to the DNA double helix, to the human genome project. Universal Common Descent is really not biology, it's a philosophy of natural history based on an a priori assumption of exclusively naturalistic causes. Darwin was basically opposed to teleology and theological arguments at large, his philosophy was developed into a unified theory through the work of Asa Grey, Herbert Spencer and influenced even Oliver Wendell Holmes indirectly.

As much as I am opposed to Darwinian thinking and it's anti-theistic tendencies, it was invaluable when genetics was in it's infancy. Genetics was not considered a true science until the unveiling of the DNA double helix model when molecular biology (physical properties) and genetics (external traits aka alleles), thus finally joining the cause and effect so fundamental to natural science.

Grace and peace,
Mark
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Are you aware all he accomplished was two best selling books?

No. Mainly because it's not true.

Darwin was a field researcher, a lab researcher, a designer and conductor of experiments and a published, peer reviewed scientist with a career in print of better than 40 years.

He worked across the fields of naturalism/natural history (what we'd now call biology), geology, botany, zoology, anatomy and geography.

He was a Fellow of the Royal Society (for his work in the 'natural sciences) and a member of the Linnean Society (a society for botanists).

He was the winner of the Society's Copley Medal (for "outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science"), the winner of the Wollaston Medal (which is the the highest award granted for geological science by the Geological Society of London) and a winner of the Royal Medal, for the advancement of "natural knowledge" (i.e. doing science).

Darwin published 17 major books on the sciences and multiple other articles and monographs, across a range of topics in evolutionary biology, geology, zoology, and even psychology.

Darwin spent two decades working and publishing as a well respected geologist and biologist before On the Origin of Species ever came to print. He earned the Royal Society Medal five years before he published his thinking on evolution.

If he wasn't a scientist, then I am Mickey Mouse.

^^^^ See this.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: tas8831
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
that is one of the most ignorant things I’ve seen on CF . The Darwin did decades of science experiments to come to the conclusions he did . OOS is a brief summary of those decades of experiments. We do have his papers you know
Darwin wasn't one for scientific experiments, he worked with orchids and pigeons but I would hardly call his work empirical. He had an extensive collection of beetles (the bug not the band), which led him to meet a Cambridge professor that was into taxonomy and from the rain forests of South America. He was known on the Beagle as 'ole flycatcher' and the 'kindly old philosopher', I guess Darwin was a pretty congenial guy. He did study medical science for several years but ultimately finished his bachelors in ministry, he didn't want to be a doctor because he said he couldn't stand to see children suffer. A ministry degree was a popular undergraduate degree at the time, Mendel actually had one, science degrees at the level were pretty much non existent. Mendel's work was exclusively focused on hybrids, something Darwin only had a limited background in. Mendel's work became the basis for at least two laws of heredity while Darwin simply enjoyed adulation for a couple of interesting but less then empirical books on the subject of evolution.
 
Last edited:
  • Haha
Reactions: Brightmoon
Upvote 0

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Iirc Darwin actually struggled with Greek and Latin and his grades were poor in the classics so I doubt if it had as much influence as you think ! His father insisted that he study to be a clergyman. He actually became a good naturalist because he liked being outdoors hunting and fishing
 
  • Informative
Reactions: USincognito
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

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
Iirc Darwin actually struggled with Greek and Latin and his grades were poor in the classics so I doubt if it had as much influence as you think ! His father insisted that he study to be a clergyman. He actually became a good naturalist because he liked being outdoors hunting and fishing
That may be, but he certainly read Aristotle in translation as well and praised him. Further, his entire field was founded by and built upon precepts of Aristotle, and such important figures as Cuvier wrote on Aristotle extensively.
 
  • Informative
Reactions: mark kennedy
Upvote 0

Quid est Veritas?

In Memoriam to CS Lewis
Feb 27, 2016
7,319
9,272
South Africa
✟316,433.00
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Married
I would love to know where you get your misinformation from
Check out The Lagoon by Armand Marie LeRoi, it is very informative on these things. You could also google Darwin's letters to William Ogle where they discuss Aristotle and Darwin thanks him for giving him his Historia Animalium in translation. The influence is often indirect though, as I said, Aristotle is so pervasive in biology you often fail to notice him, as his precepts just seem normal method in Biology.

I tried to add direct links to the letters in question, but Darwin wrote too many to Ogle. I attached an article discussing it instead:
Darwin on Aristotle

Edit: I see the post I was responding to has been changed. I had assumed this had been directed at me, seeing that it followed a post that tried to argue Darwin uninfluenced by the extensive classical education of the times, just because he struggled with the original languages. Regardless, this is good information on the philosophic base of biology.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

mark kennedy

Natura non facit saltum
Supporter
Mar 16, 2004
22,024
7,364
60
Indianapolis, IN
✟549,630.00
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Democrat
No. Mainly because it's not true.



^^^^ See this.
Darwin enjoyed a lot of honors and accolades, there is no question he was celebrated at Cambridge. On his death he was buried in Westminster cemetery, that should give you an idea of how much they thought of him there. He did publish some things on Orchids but even said the bane of horticulture was infertility, a problem for hybrids to this day. Meanwhile back in the heart of the Austrian Hungry empire Gregor Mendel was doing profoundly empirical work that would have him celebrated decades after his death and the father of modern genetics, at least two laws of inheritance to his credit, spoken of in glowing terms in the Human Genome Projects landmark publication in 2001.

I've never disparaged the man, I realize he was accomplished in many ways. I've actually grown fond of him over the years and of all the people from history I would love to be able to talk to over a cup of tea I can think of no one I would find more interesting. But he produced nothing of any great significance that could be considered empirical, the orchid hybrids I suppose but nothing worthy of being called a law of science certainly, just some anecdotal techniques. His 'On the Origin of Species was his seminal work, apart from the we would never have heard of him.

His work was clearly philosophical, but you have to understand, at the time, the age of the professional scientist had not yet come. Mendel on the other hand was a research driven Professor that helped the science of genetics grow by leaps and bounds. Taken on balance, with some reservations, I wouldn't say Darwin's contributions were scientific as much as philosophical. Don't get me wrong, his contributions to a unified theory of biology was no small thing, but he contributed nothing significant to empirical science except for a single term, 'selection'.

Have a nice day :)
Mark
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

sesquiterpene

Well-Known Member
Sep 14, 2018
732
611
USA
✟158,719.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Private
Darwin wasn't one for scientific experiments, he worked with orchids and pigeons but I would hardly call his work empirical.
I suspect that's because you don't know what the word "empirical" even means.
 
  • Like
Reactions: tas8831
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

Brightmoon

Apes and humans are all in family Hominidae.
Mar 2, 2018
6,297
5,539
NYC
✟151,950.00
Country
United States
Faith
Episcopalian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Mark what you just stated boggles the mind. I couldn’t even .... my jaw dropped. You actually believe your nonsense about Darwin. I was going to put up that quote about nothing in biology makes sense without evolution . but I can’t spell Dobwhatsis name
 
  • Like
Reactions: pitabread
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.