Evolution and Santa Claus/ /Commonalities of Illusions

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
That stunting of scientific progress and of the mental growth of the students has other disagreeable affects. When the students learn a lie as truth, they cannot assimilate knowledge in it's proper ascendancy. They lose the ability to perceive truth from falseness and so their accumulation of knowledge is erratic and perverted. This leads them to question truth, even when it is self evident, and to accept falseness if it flatters the previous lies they have been told. This perversion of student's thought processes has detrimental effects on their everyday lives away from science in that it makes them skeptical. When confronted with truth or goodness, they scoff. They become inured to the general society around them and become cynical. This undesirable trait is manifested nationally, and globally.

The ultimate manifestation of the perversion of society's beliefs is expressed not in the callousness and brutal crime of society, which is thoroughly displayed, but in the militarism of nations and their eagerness to war for the most trivial of reasons.

I couldn't have stated the negative effects of creationism any better.  What you are overlooking is that creationism is a falsified  theory.  Whatever you think about the validity of evolution as a theory, the evidence absolutely, incontrovertibly falsifies special creation.  As evidence of this, I see you have retreated to only humans. And, of course, you are invoking the standard creationist position of supposed "gaps" in knowledge.  You are ignoring all the data Darwin put in Origin and that has come up since that simply can't be there if creationism were true.  Therefore, special creation is false.

What you seem to be doing is conceding that other species have evolved and engaging in special pleading for humans.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by DNAunion

http://iidb.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=58&t=001305&p=

You might tell SciGirl that Vanderhyzden cheated in his quotes.  The quotes are from articles describing the very root of the Tree of Life.  At the level of unicellular organisms, they sway genes by lateral gene transfer. Therefore we can't find the common ancestor of all life because they didn't get all their genes by inheritance but got some by fusion and plasmids from other species.  The difficulty is specific to that area of the tree, not to genetic analysis in general.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by John MacNeil Perhaps you, in your youth and with your inexperience, don't know what a scientist really is.

I'm not sure who you addressed this to. But, in my case, you are way off.

A scientist is an investigator who searches for the truth about nature. No one can really be a scientist if they don't adhere to that standard. They could call themselves a scientist, but they wouldn't really be one if they ignored the physical evidence in favor of the hypothetical.

Not bad. And, of course, it was in searching for the truth about nature that scientists found out that creationism was wrong in the 1800s.  Before Darwin. Adam Sedgwick denounced the creationist explanation for fossils -- the Flood -- in 1831.  Modern-day creationists simply don't study history.  In the 18th and early 19th century, special creation was the reigning scientific theory.  Now, if scientists were not interested in truth, they never would have abandoned it in the first place. 

People can come up with any number of arguments that link us to evolution if they resort to fantasy. .. but if they ignore the physical evidence that we have here in the present.

But that's your poblem, isn't it. We are not ignoring the evidence we have in the present.  We are looking at embryology, physiology, morphology, genetics, and paleontology and posting evidence linking humans to other species.  It is you who is ignoring evidence by saying it doesn't exist.

The hominids that lived in the pertinent time period and that could have been the only ones present on the planet to give birth to Cro-Magnon babies do not share our complete DNA sequence.

Excuse me?  Post the citations on the complete DNA sequence of H. erectus, H. neandertalis, H. antessori, and H. habilis. 

That link to a hominid species that lived before and which, theoretically, produced us must be established for evolution theory to be viable. That is not just one of the requirements, it is the only requirement.

So all of evolution depends on the evidence availabe in just one species?  We get to "ignore" all the evidence for one species transforming to another -- even witnessing these events in real time?  Talk about ignoring evidence? What did you say about that? Oh yes, "living in a dreamworld".  Cinderella, the slipper fits.

If that link can be established, then science will have to connect the relationship to the next stage and then the next stage after that, until a clear picture emerges.

NICE escape hatch!!  So when I present the evidence linking H. sapiens to H. erectus, you can now demand evidence linking H. erectus to H. habilis?  And if there is any gap in the fossil record anywhere all the way back to the first life, then you can deny evolution?  How convenient!

You seem to be under the impression that I am a Christian and that I base my argument on my Christian beliefs, when the fact of the matter is, that I call no person or being God and I adhere to no religion or religious organization.

I personally don't care what your religious views are.  I am discussing data, which you aren't. 

I have stated in previous posts that my view is the scientific view, and that empirical description is the pattern which I follow.

Well, the next time you do that will be the first in my experience.

When I say that the Bible presents the only viable theory that has ever been presented which describes our being on this planet and as being delineated from all other hominid species, then that is also from a purely scientific view.

Really?  And how about other religious traditions? How about the Hindu view?  Have you looked at it scientifically? 

In terms of the scientific value of the Bible, if all species are supposed to be contemporaries, then why do we find species isolated in strata?  Why are Dimetrodon fossils never found in the same level strata as human fossils? Why no fossils of mammals in Cambrian strata?

I thank you for so clearly contradicting your own statement that you are looking at this from purely a scientific standpoint and that you "call no being God".  The Bible explicitly says Yahweh zapped humans into existence.  If you think that is scientifically true, then how can you not call Yahweh "God"?

 

[John MacNeil]

As further expected, there appears to be a general lack of comprehension of the view I have presented from among the stated believers and defenders of evolution. When I stated that the Bible presented the only view of how we are on this planet and delineated from all other hominid species, that is not to be taken as an endorsement of creation. The scientific view does not allow for such a construction of ecological systems without evidence. What the scientific view does recognize, is that the Bible presents a view that has us delineated from all other hominid species. It is that particular view of our delineated existance, which has been proved by the paleontological and genetic branches of science, which counts as valid theory. How the Cro-Magnon people of today came to physically exist here is not proved and science doesn't jump to the conclusion that it was through creation. Science doesn't endorse or reject creationism. It observes that the Bible defines a delineation and that evolution defines a continuum. The continuum has been proved wrong and the delineation has been proved right. Therefore science moves on knowing that evolution is wrong, but not knowing if creation is right. Time and experience will tell the tale, eventually, hopefully, but it does no one any good to get their knickers in a knot over stating their view with conviction when science hasn't revealed the definitive answer.

A note about people stating on the forum that they are scientists. Making such a claim, while hiding behind a monicker, does not render the claimant additional persuasive clout in their posting. It actually deducts from their persuasive effectiveness as, without qualification, it has the unseemly effect of appearing self-serving. After all, anyone can be anything they want to be on the internet if all they have to do to be it, is type a few words.

And I have a little bit more to say about Cro-Magnon babies and where they didn't first come from, since some members are not comprehending the reality of delineation of Cro-Magnon hominids from all other previous fossil evidence of hominids. The current writings about the evolutionary change from pre-Cro-Magnon hominids to Cro-Magnon hominids is voluminous, but it is all peripheral. All of it is assumed, speculated and specious. It all relies on miniscule evolvements within a given species that is then fabricated into a connection wihout there being a scientifically proved connection. In essence, it is all wishful thinking by people who want to believe in the evolution theory at all costs because without it they will be lost. What those people don't realize is that science doesn't need a theory of everything. If there is no evolution theory, that doesn't mean that they have to endorse the creation theory. Science can be open-ended, and actually is open-ended. For anyone of science to confine themselves in a theory of everything is to constrict their own thought and their own sense of wonder at the variety and complexity of nature.

 

[notto]

A bit wordy, I cleaned it up for you.

Originally posted by John MacNeil
...there appears to be a general lack of comprehension ... I have ... of evolution. When I stated that the Bible presented the ... view of how we are on this planet ... without evidence. What the scientific view does recognize, is that the Bible presents a view ... delineated from all other ... paleontological and genetic branches of science. ... science doesn't jump to the conclusion that it was through creation. Science does..reject creationism. It observes that the Bible ... has been proved wrong ... Therefore science moves on knowing that evolution ... and experience will tell the... definitive answer.

A note about people stating on the forum ... a claim ... deducts from their ... qualification .. if all they have ...words.

And I have a little bit more to say about ... babies and where they .. come from, since some members are not comprehending ... hominids ... All of it is assumed, speculated and specious. It all relies on miniscule ... fabricated ... thinking by people who want to believe in the ... lost. What those people don't realize is that ... everything... that doesn't ... endorse the creation theory... is science to confine ... a theory of ... the variety and complexity of nature.

 

[ashibaka]

Notto: Good summary

Originally posted by John MacNeil
A note about people stating on the forum that they are scientists. Making such a claim, while hiding behind a monicker, does not render the claimant additional persuasive clout in their posting. It actually deducts from their persuasive effectiveness as, without qualification, it has the unseemly effect of appearing self-serving. After all, anyone can be anything they want to be on the internet if all they have to do to be it, is type a few words.

If you want to talk with Actual Scientists, why not do so?

You do realise that until you actually contribute something (or explain your "Santa Claus" post), you'll just be a troll.

Until that day:

Dear Troll Candidate,

Thank you for your troll. Your troll has been evaluated by
our panel of experts. Here are the results of our tests.

We found that your troll was...
[X] Incomprehensible
[ ] Offensive
[ ] Just plain stupid
[ ] Without merit
[ ] Grammatically incorrect
[ ] Laced with spelling and punctuation errors
[ ] Laden with circular reasoning
[X] Laced with misunderstandings of basic scientific principles
[X] Somewhat too revealing of your minimal mental abilities
[ ] Too similar to other trolls submitted by candidates in the past.

You could improve your troll considerably by...
[ ] Including a few actual facts.
[ ] Taking remedial English lessons
[ ] Using a more original conspiracy theory.
[ ] Using a more original workaround for scientific theories.
[X] Mentioning that you are a professional.
[ ] Stating more falsehoods as facts than you already have.
[ ] Swearing more.
[ ] Including more colorful personal insults.
[ ] Using the phrases "you people" or "those people" more.
[X] Modifying your insults to cover larger groups of people at once.
[ ] Ranting incoherently.
[X] Using religious or racial slurs.
[X] Mentioning God more.
[ ] Using childish taunts.
[X] Including fake laughter such as "ha ha ha" or "har de har de har".
[ ] Focusing on just one outrageous topic will give your troll more punch.
[X] Ignoring any facts, and using more absolutes in your troll.
[X] Using all capital letters.

Please get a...
[ ] life
[X] grip
[ ] job
[ ] clue
[ ] note from your mom

You should...
[ ] Have someone who can read review your postings.
[ ] Save your postings out and think later if you really want to send them.
[ ] Take your meds.
[ ] Not have "one for the road" next time.
[ ] Stay in school.
[ ] Think about other people's feelings before you post.
[ ] Get your ego boost some other way.
[ ] Realize that by trolling a group you hurt everyone, not just the people you are mad at.
[X] Go away so people that actually know something can take back the conversation.
[ ] Put up a web site with your content on it to show the world.
[ ] Take down your web site, your content is ludicrous.

Thanks for your submission.

You have [ ] passed [ ] passed with honors [X] failed.

 

[LiveFreeOrDie]

PLEASE DON'T FEED THE TROLL!

 

[MSBS]

Oh well, at least he quit talking bad about santa.

 

[seebs]

I'm having a really hard time seeing how the "delineation" between us and other hominids is any more surprising to evolutionary theory than the similar distinctions between, say, dogs and wolves, or cats and other feline species.

 

[John MacNeil]

It's not a matter of the delineation of species being surprising to evolutionists, as it surely isn't to those who work in the profession scientifically. It's a matter of the physical evidence purposely not being objectively analyzed so that the evolution theory can be fallaciously retained. The theory is stated as thus;

--Darwinian theory: Darwin's theory of evolution, which holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations, and that natural selection determines which forms will survive."--Webster's

The description of the theory plainly states that "all species" are included in the theory. If even one species is proved to not have evolved from a former species by the "slight variation in successive generations" method, then the theory doesn't meet the requirements of it's own discription, and so it isn't a theory. It's just another hypothesis proved to be incorrect.

The fact that the first Cro-Magnon baby had to come from a single mother indicates that it couldn't have come from any of the previous hominids which we have evidence of. When die-hard evolutionists insist that the first Cro-Magnon babies evolved from Homo Erectus or other hominids from that era, they are depicting physical changes taking place in a few thousand year that would take tens of million of year by all their previous explanations of evolutionary change. When the physical evidence is observed objectively, without preconceived notions about any particular theory, it is patently obvious that a Neanderthal type mother did not give birth to a Cro-Magnon type baby. It is for that reason that the Smithsonian Institution states on it's website that, "The origins of modern Homo Sapians is not yet resolved." It can't get any plainer that that.

For anyone tuning into the discussion at this stage, I'll repost the link to that site below;

www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/

The fact that the scientists who study evolution admit that they don't know the origins of Homo Sapian origin conflicts with the official view of evolution. As I've said earlier, there is abundant evidence to show that evolution doesn't work for all species on the planet. I haven't presented evidence for other than human species because it only takes one species that didn't evolve from the predecessor species to prove the theory of evolution wrong.

 

[kaotic]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
It's not a matter of the delineation of species being surprising to evolutionists, as it surely isn't to those who work in the profession scientifically. It's a matter of the physical evidence purposely not being objectively analyzed so that the evolution theory can be fallaciously retained. The theory is stated as thus;

--Darwinian theory: Darwin's theory of evolution, which holds that all species of plants and animals developed from earlier forms by hereditary transmission of slight variations in successive generations, and that natural selection determines which forms will survive."--Webster's

The description of the theory plainly states that "all species" are included in the theory. If even one species is proved to not have evolved from a former species by the "slight variation in successive generations" method, then the theory doesn't meet the requirements of it's own discription, and so it isn't a theory. It's just another hypothesis proved to be incorrect.

The fact that the first Cro-Magnon baby had to come from a single mother indicates that it couldn't have come from any of the previous hominids which we have evidence of. When die-hard evolutionists insist that the first Cro-Magnon babies evolved from Homo Erectus or other hominids from that era, they are depicting physical changes taking place in a few thousand year that would take tens of million of year by all their previous explanations of evolutionary change. When the physical evidence is observed objectively, without preconceived notions about any particular theory, it is patently obvious that a Neanderthal type mother did not give birth to a Cro-Magnon tpye baby. It is for that reason that the Smithsonian Institution states on it's website that, "The origins of modern Homo Sapians is not yet resolved." It can't get any plainer that that.

For anyone tuning into the discussion at this stage, I'll repost the link to that site below;

www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/

The fact that the scientists who study evolution admit that they don't know the origins of Homo Sapian origin conflicts with the official view of evolution. As I've said earlier, there is abundant evidence to show that evolution doesn't work for all species on the planet. I haven't presented evidence for other than human species because it only takes one species that didn't evolve from the predecessor species to prove the theory of evolution wrong.

Huh? show me one species that hasn't evolved every species in the world as evoved through evolution.

 

[ashibaka]

Seesaw, do you mean that there's no reason for evolution to be specially eliminated in the case of humans? I think that's what you're saying, but you have an odd way of typing.

To John MacTroll: It's not that there was a jump from one species to the next. The direct ancestors of Cro-Magnons (and just because we haven't found any fossils doesn't mean they don't exist) were a little bit different from their progeny, and their parents might have been a little bit different, and so on back up the line until you come to a different species entirely.

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by John MacNeil When I stated that the Bible presented the only view of how we are on this planet and delineated from all other hominid species, that is not to be taken as an endorsement of creation. The scientific view does not allow for such a construction of ecological systems without evidence. What the scientific view does recognize, is that the Bible presents a view that has us delineated from all other hominid species. It is that particular view of our delineated existance, which has been proved by the paleontological and genetic branches of science, which counts as valid theory.

From the Smithsonian Website you posted "Our understanding of the fossil record shows that distinctively human traits appeared neither recently nor all at once. Rather, they evolved piecemeal over a period of roughly 5 million years. By 4 million years ago, humans were habitually <I>bipedal</I> (walking on two legs) yet had brains roughly a third of the size of a modern human's (about the size of a modern ape's brain). By 2.5 million years ago the manufacture of stone tools was common. Large increases in brain size occurred even later. Complex behaviors such as adaptation to a wide range of environments and cultural diversification emerged only within the last 100,000 years. "&nbsp; So I'm wondering why you think the site supports the "Biblical" position of delineated lineages.

How the Cro-Magnon people of today came to physically exist here is not proved ... Science doesn't endorse or reject creationism.

Science has falsified creationism.&nbsp; It did that 150 years ago. The data that did that hasn't gone away.

As to the "Cro-Magnon people", let's remember that Cro-Magnons are H. sapiens.&nbsp; While they appear in the fossil record about 30,000 years ago in Europe and don't have any ancestors in Europe, that doesn't mean that they don't have ancestors or that there are not fossils connecting H. sapiens to another species.&nbsp; I suspect that what we have here, John, is your use of Cro-Magnon to obscure the issue. Examples of transitional individual fossils connecting H. sapiens (Cro-Magnon) to H. erectus, besides the one I already posted (which John blithely ignores) are:
&nbsp;Omo valley.&nbsp; Omo-2 "remarkable mixture of Homo erectus and Homo sapiens characteristics"&nbsp; pg. 70.&nbsp;
Omo-1: another mix of erectus and sapiens
Skhul and Jebel Qafza caves: "robust" H. sapiens at 120 Kya that have brow ridges like erectus but brain case like sapiens.
Tautavel, 200Kya:&nbsp; large brow ridges and small cranium but rest of face looks like H. sapiens.
"We shall see the problem of drawing up a dividing line between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens is not easy."&nbsp; pg 65.
Ngaloba Beds of Laetoli, 120 Kya:&nbsp; ~1200 cc and suite of archaic (erectus) features.
Guamde in Turkana Basin, 180 Kya: more modern features than Ngaloba but in-between erectus and sapiens.
Skhul, Israel&nbsp; "posed a puzzle to paleoanthropologists, appearing to be almost but not quite modern humans"&nbsp; Page references to F. Clark Howell, Early Man Time Life Library, 1980. So you see the data has been there for a long time for anyone who really wants to see it.

A note about people stating on the forum that they are scientists. Making such a claim, while hiding behind a monicker, does not render the claimant additional persuasive clout in their posting.

If that is directed at me, then you are again way off base. I'm not "hiding" behind a moniker. Lucas is my last name, PA are my initials.&nbsp; In my profile I list my place of employment -- New York Medical College -- so you can find me on their website.&nbsp; You can also do a PubMed search under "lucas pa" to find my publications.&nbsp; I am not the microbiologist, but the stem cell guy.&nbsp; You want the rough drafts of the papers, to see that they are genuine?


The current writings about the evolutionary change from pre-Cro-Magnon hominids to Cro-Magnon hominids is voluminous, but it is all peripheral. All of it is assumed, speculated and specious.

Citations, please.&nbsp; And please stop using "Cro-Magnon".&nbsp; The correct term is H. sapiens, since Cro-Magnon refers only to those H. sapiens fossils found in southern Europe.&nbsp; You don't do your own credibility any good by the failure to use the correct terminology.

In essence, it is all wishful thinking by people who want to believe in the evolution theory at all costs because without it they will be lost.

LOL! This is wishful thinking on your part.&nbsp; Why would they be lost without evolution?&nbsp;

If there is no evolution theory, that doesn't mean that they have to endorse the creation theory.

Of course they don't endorse creationism. Since creationism is already falsified.&nbsp;

Sorry, your attempt to falsify evolution simply doesn't work.&nbsp;

Even if there were no transitionals between sapiens and erectus -- and there are -- that would not falsify evolution. Remember, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.&nbsp; The genetic, morphological, and embryological data alone would establish our relationship with the other apes. After all, Huxley had no fossil evidence when he argued the evolution of humans and apes from a common ancestor in the 1860s.&nbsp; He used the similarities between the other ape species and us to establish the common ancestry.

http://aleph0.clarku.edu/huxley/CE7/index.html

 

[lucaspa]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
What the scientific view does recognize, is that the Bible presents a view that has us delineated from all other hominid species. It is that particular view of our delineated existance, which has been proved by the paleontological and genetic branches of science, which counts as valid theory. ...
And I have a little bit more to say about Cro-Magnon babies and where they didn't first come from, since some members are not comprehending the reality of delineation of Cro-Magnon hominids from all other previous fossil evidence of hominids.

Let's be clear. There is no clear delineation from us and all other hominid species.&nbsp; Nor is there a clear delineation, in the sense of an impossible gulf, between us and existing apes.&nbsp; The current genetic evidence is particularly clear on that.&nbsp; In fact, one recent paper shows that our language ability depends depends on two point mutations in a single gene -- FOXP2 -- and that has occurred within the last 200,000 years.&nbsp; Exactly the time the fossil evidence and other genetic evidence -- mtDNA -- shows that H. sapiens appeared.

So the whole premise of your argument is wrong.&nbsp; The "delineation" doesn't exist. Since that doesn't exist, all your other conclusions regarding the validity of Biblical delineation, problems of evolution, etc. are invalid.

 

[John MacNeil]

In case you haven't noticed, I have purposely described the differences of the physical characteristics between the Cro-Magnon and the Skhul V, as well as ascertaining the time period in which both specimen of hominid lived on this planet. Since the evolutionists classify both of the different type of hominid in the same category of Homo Sapian for the express purpose of implying a continuity, I couldn't use the term Homo Sapians since it is used too broadly and doesn't reflect the reality.

The evolutionists can dredge up thousands of report of evolutionary change. After all, producing reports is how many of them make a living. They will grasp at any straw to try and further support their crumbling theory. But without newly discovered fossil evidence that will prove a connection between Cro-Magnon and a predecessor hominid, they have no theory, since the known fossil specimens do not exhibit sufficient similarities to be incorporated in a natural selective phylogeny that leads to a Cro-Magnon baby.

It is plain that the evolutionists posting here have, for the most part, reached that stage where they have run out of physical evidence and logic, and they have resorted to the childish tactic of character attacks and obfuscation. To not get into a childish battle of witicisms, I think
the thread should be directed back toward an earlier theme, and that is the detrimental effects that illogical theories have when they are imposed on society for less than altruistic reasons.

When the people in society are indoctrinated with a theory that they are told is absolute truth, they cease to question the theory in their own mind. When no other view but the official view is tolerated, and when fabrications and half truths are used to corroborate the original proposal, many of those people lose the ability to tell the difference, to some extent, between truth and falseness. Over time, this constant adherance to dogma retards those people's ability to tell right from wrong, since they don't have a foundation belief to keep them focused. The ill effects of such a retarded society are always apparent in the society's behavior.

All children in society are the product of that society. They learn what the social conditions teach them, more so through everyday living than through school. If the children are brought up in a society that is based on truth and goodness, then the children will grow up to be good. If a code of honor is instilled in them from their earliest age, and if society adheres to a code of honor in all it's dealings, then the society will become honorable.
The proponents of evolution theory have pitted their theory against religionism, as if religion shouldn't exist and they are bent on wiping it out. The evolutionists feel it is part of their duty to ridicule religion in an attempt to erase it from our culture. In their social blindness, they don't understand that the people who truly believe in a God are good people. They are the ones, for the most part, who form charities to help the needy and who strive to live a good life according to a moral code. It is the non-believers in a God who think that "anything goes" in society and it is they who contribute the detrimental influences that so negatively affect our culture.

That is not to say that all people who don't believe in God are bad people. Far from it. But the ones who contribute detrimental influences create reverberations throughout society that far exceed their representative number.

 

[notto]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
The evolutionists feel it is part of their duty to ridicule religion in an attempt to erase it from our culture. In their social blindness, they don't understand that the people who truly believe in a God are good people. They are the ones, for the most part, who form charities to help the needy and who strive to live a good life according to a moral code. It is the non-believers in a God who think that "anything goes" in society and it is they who contribute the detrimental influences that so negatively affect our culture.

How do you resolve this statement with the fact that many of the "evolutionists" you describe are Christian (including many on this board)? What about adherents of other religions who also understand and participate in the science of and research of expanding evolutionary knowledge? Your view of what an "evolutionist" believes or what their motives are is false. To suggest that the hard working, honest, scientists who participate every day in the quest for knowledge and toward a common understanding of biology (knowledge which mankind benefits from) are in someway trying to subvert or corrupt culture is exactly the behavior you try to condemn in your post.

Are Christian evolutionists trying to ridicule religion in an attempt to remove it from society?

 

[chickenman]

don't feed the troll, he isn't interested in anything but espousing his opinion, evidenced buy the fact that he hasn't bothered to discuss the evidence for human/primate common ancestry on the urate oxidase thread

we don't need the transitional macneil, the evidence of common ancestry is right there in your dna

 

[John MacNeil]

Christians and evolutionists are two different categories. Christians can't believe in the totality of evolution or they can't believe their God placed us on this planet as separate from all the previous specimen of hominid. The Christians who espouse a form of evolution are actually believers in Natural Selection, as am I. The difference is that Natural Selection is known to favorably evolve species in the present time, and it appears to have evolved species before our appearence on this planet. The separation that disproves evolution is the appearence of Cro-Magnon humans which are not similar enough to the Neanderthal type of hominids to have evolved from them in the short span of time that evolutionists allot for that transformation.

In the Bible, Genesis says nothing about the time before God made the transformation from a non-liveable to a liveable environment. We know, from the fossil record, that the Earth suffered a mass extinction about 65 million year ago and that after that extinction almost all the lifeforms on the planet were radically different than the dinosaur type. The explanation for that change is commonly believed to have been an asteroidal impact that caused a non-liveable environment for a certain period. Some type of catastrophe must also have created a non-liveable environment at the later stage which caused the demise of the lifeforms from just before thirty thousand year ago. In that period we see the end of all the Neanderthal types of hominid, which include the Skhul V, the Shanidar 1, the Le Moustier and several others. Then we see the abrupt appearance of Cro-Magnon with it's distinctive differences from all the previous hominids.

The Bible does not state how long the days were that were required to make the planet's environment liveable. Presumeably, if God lives galactically, then the length of the days would have been measured by galactic time, which would be a far longer day then one measured by Earth's solar time. The fact that the Bible states that there was a period when the Earth's environment was non-life-sustaining and then was made life-sustaining, correlates with the emergence of our distinctively different human type. Therefore, scientifically, the Bible must be regarded as a viable presenter of a theory that explains our existence.

Of course, that is not to say it must be believed that God snapped his fingers and everything just appeared instantaneously. But the Bible does describe us as having been made of the elements of the earth, which science has ascertained, so it must be recognized that significant information about our origin is in the Bible. We just don't know the mechanism or the timeline that were required to bring us into existence, but whatever it was, it had to have been a process which could ultimately be explained empirically.

A note about the chicken posters who hide behind a monicker and who lash out irrationally at other posters: When such people run out of logic and then attack others from a personal perspective, they only serve to reveal their own flawed character.

Now about DNA similarities between species. All mammals on this planet share the same physiological systems. All carbon based life that require the same elements to live do so because they had to develop to live in the single planetary environment. It's simply a matter of conforming to the existing environment or not evolving at all. In the studies of mice, researchers have found that of 4000 genes, fewer than 10 are different than the similar genes found in humans. That's a 90 % or better similarity of gene sequences shared by mice and human. That can be reviewed at this site;

www.ornl.gov/hgmis/publicat/hgn/v11n3/11msc.html

The same type of similarities can be found between pigs and humans and other species combinations. If monkeys have one or two more genes in common to humans than do other species, then that is probably because they are shaped more like humans than other species. To deduce from that scant evidence that humans evolved from monkeys would be as implausible as saying we evolved from mice.

 

[kaotic]

I would bet my life that with in the next 50 years or so we will be advanced enough that we can proof or almost proof that the big bang happened, and that humans are here from evolution. The only reason why I say this is cause in about 10 or 20 years we will have full quantum computers that will help us help us figure out almost anything.

 

[MSBS]

Originally posted by John MacNeil
When such people run out of logic and then attack others from a personal perspective, they only serve to reveal their own flawed character.

...

It is nothing to be ashamed of, or no reason to be embarrassed, for the people who've stated they can't perceive anything worthwhile to discuss in this thread. All people are different from each other and every individual has their limitations, whether that threshold be physical or mental ability.

...

How amusing, ..you kids are! Not very bright, or original, but amusing nonetheless, with your "Discover" magazine understanding of science.

...

Perhaps you, in your youth and with your inexperience, don't know what a scientist really is.

...

I can tell by your postings that you youngsters don't read other people's posts with an objective view.

Hypocrisy? Not from our buddy John!