Help Me Debunk this Article

[kerryann123]

First of all I am not a scientist - so don't get all that technical with me.

Well I searched on google for "why We didn't evolve from monkeys" and was surprised to find a lot of evolutionist stuff and not creationist stuff as expected. Along with that horrible guy Dawkins I found this (Google "Why We Did Not Evolve from Monkeys: Human Common Ancestry explained" - I can't link to it for some reason) where the guy amazingly claims that we didn't evolve from monkeys and that scientists have never said that! He (Connor Davidson) claims this is a misconception. Is that true? OR is that just scientists having different ideas and this guy just having his own interpretation.

Though the thing I want you to help me debunk is the bit about the genes joining up. I know evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc but I don't have a response to the genetic arguments. I was hoping someone could explain the truth about this so I can have something to argue against the evolutionists with. I don't want to look stupid.

Though I have to say he is quite polite until the end where he makes fun of Sheri Sheppard and creationists by implying that we are stupid. Jesus teaches us to be tolerant of others and not to call people stupid because we disagree with them. He is just a little bit better than Dawkins at this in my opinion.

Basically what I am saying is what is wrong with the arguments? What response could I give to people who agree with this?

May god bless you and guide you on your quest for knowedge and truth

[BIBLE]Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.[/BIBLE]

- Kerry Ann

 

[Mr Strawberry]

First of all I am not a scientist - so don't get all that technical with me.

Well I searched on google for "why We didn't evolve from monkeys" and was surprised to find a lot of evolutionist stuff and not creationist stuff as expected. Along with that horrible guy Dawkins I found this (Google "Why We Did Not Evolve from Monkeys: Human Common Ancestry explained" - I can't link to it for some reason) where the guy amazingly claims that we didn't evolve from monkeys and that scientists have never said that! He claims this is a misconception. Is that true? OR is that just scientists having different ideas and this guy just having his own interpretation.

Though the thing I want you to help me debunk is the bit about the genes joining up. I know evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc but I don't have a response to the genetic arguments. I was hoping someone could explain the truth about this so I can have something to argue against the evolutionists with. I don't want to look stupid.

Though I have to say he is quite polite until the end where he makes fun of Sheri Sheppard and creationists by implying that we are stupid. Jesus teaches us to be tolerant of others and not to call people stupid because we disagree with them. He is just a little bit better than Dawkins at this in my opinion.

Basically what I am saying is what is wrong with the arguments? What response could I give to people who agree with this?

May god bless you and guide you on your quest for knowedge and truth

[bible]Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.[/bible]

- Kerry Ann

Probably the best first step would be to make a thorough study of the arguments you intend to debunk. Make sure you understand exactly what it is you are attacking before you expect to demolish it. You might start by reading the evolution websites that took you by surprise by saying humans share a common ancestor with monkeys.

And the very best of luck.

 

[NailsII]

I know evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc but I don't have a response to the genetic arguments. I was hoping someone could explain the truth about this so I can have something to argue against the evolutionists with. I don't want to look stupid.

Too late, you already have.

 

[kerryann123]

Very Witty - I like it. I know that disproves evolution but if I was to bring that up when discussing genes and evolution it would look like I was dodging the question.

 

[Davian]

Firstly, welcome to CF!

First of all I am not a scientist - so don't get all that technical with me.

I'm no scientist either, but the topic you have broached is very complex.

Well I searched on google for "why We didn't evolve from monkeys" and was surprised to find a lot of evolutionist stuff and not creationist stuff as expected. Along with that horrible guy Dawkins I found this (Google "Why We Did Not Evolve from Monkeys: Human Common Ancestry explained" - I can't link to it for some reason) where the guy amazingly claims that we didn't evolve from monkeys and that scientists have never said that! He claims this is a misconception. Is that true? OR is that just scientists having different ideas and this guy just having his own interpretation.

This article?
Why We Did Not Evolve from Monkeys: Human Common Ancestry Explained | Connor Davidson

By my layman's understanding of the scientific theory of evolution, it would appear to be a sound article.

Though the thing I want you to help me debunk is the bit about the genes joining up. I know evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc but I don't have a response to the genetic arguments. I was hoping someone could explain the truth about this so I can have something to argue against the evolutionists with. I don't want to look stupid.

Then I would suggest learning as much a you can about the subject rather than looking for some quick retorts. For example, you might want to avoid the evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc angle.

Though I have to say he is quite polite until the end where he makes fun of Sheri Sheppard and creationists by implying that we are stupid.

I do not see where he implies any such thing; we get to hear her own words on the subject.

Jesus teaches us to be tolerant of others and not to call people stupid because we disagree with them. He is just a little bit better than Dawkins at this in my opinion.

Perhaps you are projecting. I do not see anywhere in the article where he made remarks to that effect.

Basically what I am saying is what is wrong with the arguments? What response could I give to people who agree with this? <snip>

There will be others along to help you with this; If your intent is not to 'look stupid', I would suggest that you investigate the merit of each prior to using them yourself.

 

[BananaSlug]

He is right. Humans did not evolved from monkeys but humans and monkeys share a common ancestor (which was probably quite monkeylike).

 

[kerryann123]

Yes that is the article.

He suggests that you can ignore the critics. Also he then mentions that there are critics and gives an example of one saying something very silly. Trying to make all critics look stupid.

 

[Davian]

Yes that is the article.

He suggests that you can ignore the critics. Also he then mentions that there are critics and gives an example of one saying something very silly. Trying to make all critics look stupid.

No, saying silly things on national television makes critics look stupid. Bringing it up in his article puts them in context.

 

[Naraoia]

Helloes!

First of all I am not a scientist - so don't get all that technical with me.

Well I searched on google for "why We didn't evolve from monkeys" and was surprised to find a lot of evolutionist stuff and not creationist stuff as expected.

Welcome to the brave new world of knowledge. Surprises await around every corner!

Along with that horrible guy Dawkins I found this (Google "Why We Did Not Evolve from Monkeys: Human Common Ancestry explained" - I can't link to it for some reason) where the guy amazingly claims that we didn't evolve from monkeys and that scientists have never said that! He (Connor Davidson) claims this is a misconception. Is that true? OR is that just scientists having different ideas and this guy just having his own interpretation.

I don't fully agree with him, but it's more of a semantic question than a biological one. In short, it all depends on what you mean by "monkeys". ("Monkeys" is obviously not a scientific term. It doesn't really have a technical definition.)

If you mean living monkeys, he is absolutely correct. We did not evolve from any living species (or even family) of monkeys, and that was never the contention of evolutionary theory. We shared a common ancestor with living monkeys.

However, if "monkey" simply means a certain kind of primate, living or extinct, then this common ancestor could also be described as a monkey. It was the last common ancestor of the group more technically known as simians (apes + old world monkeys + new world monkeys). If it lived today, you would quite possibly call it a monkey.

Does that make sense?

Though the thing I want you to help me debunk is the bit about the genes joining up.

Unfortunately, I can't help in any debunking here. As far as I'm aware, it is perfectly sound science. What's more, similar fused chromosomes have been observed in other creatures besides humans, a well-known example being muntjac deer (which seem to have undergone lots of complex genome shuffling, chromosome fusions included. BTW, those links are abstracts of technical papers - they are mainly here for citation purposes, but if you are interested, I can take a stab at explaining what the studies did.)

ETA: for the sake of pedantry, it's not genes but chromosomes that joined up. Chromosomes each contain many genes; there are hundreds of known genes even on the smallest human chromosomes. (We have to fit over 20 000 genes onto just 23 chromosomes, after all!)

I know evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc but I don't have a response to the genetic arguments. I was hoping someone could explain the truth about this so I can have something to argue against the evolutionists with. I don't want to look stupid.

I can explain some truths about genetic arguments to you, but I'm not sure you will like them. (Truth ain't about liking, though. If you're really on a quest for knowledge, don't ignore the bits you don't like!)

 

[NailsII]

I know evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc but I don't have a response to the genetic arguments. I was hoping someone could explain the truth about this so I can have something to argue against the evolutionists with. I don't want to look stupid.

Too late, you already have.

Very Witty - I like it. I know that disproves evolution but if I was to bring that up when discussing genes and evolution it would look like I was dodging the question.

No, it would look like you don't know what you are talking about.
Sorry to be blunt (it wasn't supposed to be witty) but complexity does not prove design, and so disprove evolution.
The basis of this argument is that because you cannot see how complex things evolved, then they must have been designed.
To arrive at this conclusion you must have already accepted that such a designer exists, and this is basically confirming what you already believe.
This is basically an argument from personal incredulity, and although Behe sells a good story there is nothing factual in it, unfortunately.
If you want I can post you some links to show why irriducible complexity is a non-argument, if you are interested.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Though the thing I want you to help me debunk is the bit about the genes joining up. I know evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc but I don't have a response to the genetic arguments. I was hoping someone could explain the truth about this so I can have something to argue against the evolutionists with. I don't want to look stupid.

No. If you want to learn about evolution and genetics then read a book, watch a documentary or, if you really want to, enroll in a few courses. Evolution is a science, not a political tool.

Forgive me for being rude - but too many people like to mock creationists for knowing nothing about evolution when they know practically nothing about evolution themselves either.

 

[Elias526]

I know evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc

There are actually two parts to the issue of the complexity of the eye. The first part is that in the Cambrian radiation the complex eyes shows up fully formed. They fail to show that the eye evolved in stages. There is no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian, but a wide range of diversity is evident in the Middle Cambrian.

So when eyes show up in the fossil record fully formed, this presents a lack of evidence that they evolved.

 

[NailsII]

There are actually two parts to the issue of the complexity of the eye. The first part is that in the Cambrian radiation the complex eyes shows up fully formed. They fail to show that the eye evolved in stages. There is no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian, but a wide range of diversity is evident in the Middle Cambrian.

So when eyes show up in the fossil record fully formed, this presents a lack of evidence that they evolved.

But the Cambrian eyes are nothing like the eyes that we see on tetrapods today and this alone is consistant with evolutionary theory.
Genetic evidence supports several early eye designs which have radiated and altered over time.

Without being patronising, there is an easy to understand overview of eye evolution here:
But the big two question I would ask you to consider are these:

1. Why would any creator make crude eyes, then come back some time later and improve them, and continue over many millions of year to introduce new designs etc -all the while leaving the early animals (or rather, the few that have survived) with rudimentry eyes such as the nortilus. Doesn't that deserve an eye at least as good as an octopus?
2. Why would a designer need animals to have eyes? Why would they need to flee from predators, why would they need to use visual cues to find mates, and why can these amazing comlicated visual systems be fooled so easily by camouflauge, for example?

 

[Naraoia]

There are actually two parts to the issue of the complexity of the eye. The first part is that in the Cambrian radiation the complex eyes shows up fully formed.

Imagine an "eye" that's just a few light sensitive cells, maybe in a shallow depression on a small soft-bodied animal's head. Now imagine a complex eye wrapped in tough tissue like the sclera of the vertebrate eye, or, heaven forbid, having mineralised lenses.

Which kind of eye do you think is more likely to be fossilised?

Adding to that, the sort of fossil preservation that made the Burgess Shale etc. so famous gives you way more fine detail than you can expect in older animal fossils. (BTW, eye fossils that are more than a dark blob are a sensation that can make Nature twice in a year even for the most amazing Middle Cambrian fossil sites.)

Addendum #2: AFAIK the first half of the Cambrian fossil record mostly consists of minuscule hard parts of small animals whose soft tissues perished long ago. Good luck finding any kind of eye in a pile of mollusc shells and sponge spicules.

Addendum #3: good luck catching transitions of this time scale in the aforementioned fossil record.

They fail to show that the eye evolved in stages. There is no evidence of eyes before the Cambrian, but a wide range of diversity is evident in the Middle Cambrian. So when eyes show up in the fossil record fully formed, this presents a lack of evidence that they evolved.

Which would be a textbook case of absence of evidence not being evidence of absence.

 

[drjean]

Here's a great site I use for all those questions! Reasons To Believe : Where Modern Science & Faith Converge

(Once you have more posts, you'll be able to post links as well...be sure to read the guidelines about that.)

As a side note, I found that "arguing" anything but WHO Jesus is/what He did/does with an unbeliever only wasted time. Until they can accept that Jesus is our Redeemer, God... there's nothing else to argue.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Welcome to CF

First of all I am not a scientist - so don't get all that technical with me.

Well I searched on google for "why We didn't evolve from monkeys" and was surprised to find a lot of evolutionist stuff and not creationist stuff as expected. Along with that horrible guy Dawkins I found this (Google "Why We Did Not Evolve from Monkeys: Human Common Ancestry explained" - I can't link to it for some reason) where the guy amazingly claims that we didn't evolve from monkeys and that scientists have never said that! He (Connor Davidson) claims this is a misconception. Is that true? OR is that just scientists having different ideas and this guy just having his own interpretation.

Davidson is correct, and "we evolved from monkeys" is a common Creationist misunderstanding. It depends on what is meant by 'monkey' - unlike terms like 'Hominidae', it doesn't have a strict definition. Modern monkeys, no, we didn't evolve from them. But if 'monkey' refers to any kind of primate or primate-like creature, then yes, we did evolve from monkeys - but ancestral species of monkeys, not modern species of monkeys.But in science, we tend to reserve 'monkey' for living species of monkey.

Though the thing I want you to help me debunk is the bit about the genes joining up. I know evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc but I don't have a response to the genetic arguments. I was hoping someone could explain the truth about this so I can have something to argue against the evolutionists with. I don't want to look stupid.

Well, that assumes the argument is wrong. Have you considered that it's not? As for the eye and the complexity of life... I don't think they do what you think they do. Common Creationist arguments about the eye are things like quote-mining Darwin in Origin of Species (read on just a few paragraphs later, and you'll see why it's a silly argument).

Though I have to say he is quite polite until the end where he makes fun of Sheri Sheppard and creationists by implying that we are stupid. Jesus teaches us to be tolerant of others and not to call people stupid because we disagree with them.

Actually, Jesus was vehemently rude to those he opposed, like the money-changers in the temple. Remember the passage about pearls and swine? Hardly the most polite way to treat your intellectual opponents.

Basically what I am saying is what is wrong with the arguments? What response could I give to people who agree with this?

what indeed. All the science supports it - so why do you think it's wrong?

 

[juvenissun]

First of all I am not a scientist - so don't get all that technical with me.

Well I searched on google for "why We didn't evolve from monkeys" and was surprised to find a lot of evolutionist stuff and not creationist stuff as expected. Along with that horrible guy Dawkins I found this (Google "Why We Did Not Evolve from Monkeys: Human Common Ancestry explained" - I can't link to it for some reason) where the guy amazingly claims that we didn't evolve from monkeys and that scientists have never said that! He (Connor Davidson) claims this is a misconception. Is that true? OR is that just scientists having different ideas and this guy just having his own interpretation.

Though the thing I want you to help me debunk is the bit about the genes joining up. I know evolution can be disproved by complexity of life and the eye etc but I don't have a response to the genetic arguments. I was hoping someone could explain the truth about this so I can have something to argue against the evolutionists with. I don't want to look stupid.

Though I have to say he is quite polite until the end where he makes fun of Sheri Sheppard and creationists by implying that we are stupid. Jesus teaches us to be tolerant of others and not to call people stupid because we disagree with them. He is just a little bit better than Dawkins at this in my opinion.

Basically what I am saying is what is wrong with the arguments? What response could I give to people who agree with this?

May god bless you and guide you on your quest for knowedge and truth

[BIBLE]Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.[/BIBLE]

- Kerry Ann

Well, I am sorry to see a bunch of evolutionists are answering your question. Here is one from a creationist:

They are playing tricky scientific language with you. That is what it is.

To a non-scientist, a monkey is a monkey. But to a biologist, there are hundreds of types of monkeys. They would give you one species name and say: "that" is the one which evolved into human.

So, Don't be surprised. They are only showing off their "knowledge". That's all.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Well, I am sorry to see a bunch of evolutionists are answering your question. Here is one from a creationist:

They are playing tricky scientific language with you. That is what it is.

To a non-scientist, a monkey is a monkey. But to a biologist, there are hundreds of types of monkeys. They would give you one species name and say: "that" is the one which evolved into human.

So, Don't be surprised. They are only showing off their "knowledge". That's all.

Yes, darn us with our facts and knowledge and demonstrable truths! We went to centuries of trouble just so we could show off all our achievements and breakthroughs that have double lifespands and wiped out diseases - how conceited are we!

 

[Naraoia]

Well, I am sorry to see a bunch of evolutionists are answering your question. Here is one from a creationist:

They are playing tricky scientific language with you. That is what it is.

What tricks would those be?

To a non-scientist, a monkey is a monkey. But to a biologist, there are hundreds of types of monkeys.

What exactly is wrong or "tricky" about that?

They would give you one species name and say: "that" is the one which evolved into human.

I wouldn't. You can rarely infer direct ancestry from the fossil record, and I have a feeling we've told you that before. You've been talking to us for years; I have no idea where you get these weird notions of what we "would" do.

So, Don't be surprised. They are only showing off their "knowledge". That's all.

Great. Someone asks some questions, we give honest answers that aren't the answers she's expecting, and we're showing off.

If I answer your questions, I'm showing off and you win. If I don't answer your questions, evolution can't answer them and you win.

Holy spliceosome. You sure are hard to please.

 

[plindboe]

Welcome aboard, kerryann123. Stick around, there's alot to learn here, if you're interested in learning.

Have you considered asking the question "Is this article right or wrong?", instead of assuming it's wrong and asking people to debunk it? Which of these would be the open-minded option?

Concerning the article, I don't agree with the beginning of it, because if the common ancestor of monkeys and apes (including humans) were alive today, it would possess all the traits to be classified as a monkey.

Creationists are arguing from personal incredulity, and evolutionists are responding with an anal retentive semantic correction. Sure, the evolutionists are technically correct, but that's only because the word "monkey" has a silly definition.

Using better defined words: We evolved from and essentially are eukaryotes, animals, vertebrates, fish, chordates, amniotes, mammals, primates, monkeys, apes and humans.

Peter