Humans are unique, not evolved

[Aussie Pete]

Did Humans’ Unique Skeletal Architecture Evolve? – CEH

crev.info

There is no evidence to suggest that apes evolved into humans. In spite of researcher's best efforts, all they can come up with is termes like "likely", "may have" and "suggest" when attempting to force the square peg of evolution into the round hole of Creation. Read and enjoy!

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Did Humans’ Unique Skeletal Architecture Evolve? – CEH

crev.info

There is no evidence to suggest that apes evolved into humans. In spite of researcher's best efforts, all they can come up with is termes like "likely", "may have" and "suggest" when attempting to force the square peg of evolution into the round hole of Creation. Read and enjoy!

Actually I think it was chimpanzees, not apes.
Humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA.
Much of this is junk DNA from ancient viruses. When a virus attacks a cell, it injects its DNA into the nucleus of the cell where they mix. They use this mechanism to reproduce. But if the DNA from said virus gets into a sperm or egg, then that DNA may replicate into the fertilized egg as a part of the genome. Nearly 10% of our DNA is comprised of this leftover junk DNA (labs have actually reactivated some of these virus segments). It has no known purpose. It is just leftovers from ancient viruses. My point here is, some of these '"leftover" virus segments are from primates that existed millions of years ago before man existed, and those primates were not human. They infected ancient primates that preceded us.
In the end it really does not matter. God created us all, whether is was from dirt or from evolution. Here we are.

 

[BobRyan]

Did Humans’ Unique Skeletal Architecture Evolve? – CEH

crev.info

There is no evidence to suggest that apes evolved into humans. In spite of researcher's best efforts, all they can come up with is termes like "likely", "may have" and "suggest" when attempting to force the square peg of evolution into the round hole of Creation. Read and enjoy!

Good point.

bacteria does not turn into amoeba
Nor does it become a rabbit over time given enough time and chance
Nor do non-human primates turn into humans, not even an early-primate could do it.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Actually I think it was chimpanzees, not apes.
Humans and chimps share 98.8% of their DNA.
Much of this is junk DNA from ancient viruses. When a virus attacks a cell, it injects its DNA into the nucleus of the cell where they mix. They use this mechanism to reproduce. But if the DNA from said virus gets into a sperm or egg, then that DNA may replicate into the fertilized egg as a part of the genome. Nearly 10% of our DNA is comprised of this leftover junk DNA (labs have actually reactivated some of these virus segments). It has no known purpose. It is just leftovers from ancient viruses. My point here is, some of these '"leftover" virus segments are from primates that existed millions of years ago before man existed, and those primates were not human. They infected ancient primates that preceded us.
In the end it really does not matter. God created us all, whether is was from dirt or from evolution. Here we are.

So many errors............ Scientists are often arrogant in the extreme. They dismiss what they do not understand, usually ascribing it to some fact of evolution. When I was young, my 3 siblings had their tonsils were removed causing much suffering. Tonsils were supposed to be useless vestigial organs. Likewise the appendix. No one removes tonsils now and the appendix has been shown to have a real purpose.

So called junk DNA numbers are shrinking as more discoveries are made. We also share our DNA mice and cats. Even a banana has about 60% the same genes.

Car manufacturers have learned that it is far more efficient to have a common platform with modular components than to have a unique design for every vehicle. So to do the same with DNA makes perfect sense to me. Humans have 3 billion base pairs. 0.1% makes up the differences such as eye and hair and skin colour. Onions have 12 times as much DNA as humans. You would imagine with all that DNA, they would evolve into something amazing. Nope. There are different varieties of onion, but onions they remain. I don't know why people won't take God at His word. Science is proven to be fallible, with sinners lying and cheating to try and get fame and fortune, arrogant scientists looking down their noses at the rest of us - - the same as any other human endeavour. I don't say every scientist is corrupt, that is not true. I do say that science is not the pure and noble pursuit of knowledge that is portrayed. "Peer reviewed" has little meaning these days. It's too easy to find the uncritical who will sign their names to a review.

 

[BobRyan]

So many errors............ Scientists are often arrogant in the extreme. They dismiss what they do not understand, usually ascribing it to some fact of evolution. When I was young, my 3 siblings had their tonsils were removed causing much suffering. Tonsils were supposed to be useless vestigial organs. Likewise the appendix. No one removes tonsils now and the appendix has been shown to have a real purpose.

So called junk DNA numbers are shrinking as more discoveries are made. We also share our DNA mice and cats. Even a banana has about 60% the same genes.

good point -- "ignorance parades as arrogance" in some science cloisters.

The "atheist POV on science" is sort of the "holy grail" for some institutions.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

I always believed that "evolution," did not mean that species evolved from other species.
Some think that the theory of evolution means that species crossed in the evolutionary
process. I don't agree with this.

However, the human did evolve from within the species itself. Men are taller now than even back in the days of
knights where their armor suits shows that they were on average shorter.

I've been listening and reading books by people like Dr John Lennox and Dr Stephen C, Meyer.
They believe that humans had evolved within their own species, but there was not a cross
over to another species. FYI. Humans and chimpanzees share 99% of the same DNA, but according
to scientists, the 1% difference is still huge.

In fact, Meyer pointed out that the genetic make up of any species deuterates drastically
when the genes don't evolve perfectly within the species.

Theilhard De Chardin's theory was probably right. Humans evolved biologically until about
10,000 years ago. Then the biological evolution process slowed way down. However,
intellectual and spiritual evolution continued and still continues today.

 

[expos4ever]

bacteria does not turn into amoeba
Nor does it become a rabbit over time given enough time and chance

Strawman. Evolution does not operate in this way. Evolution also requires the mechanism of natural section as well. You are misrepresenting the theory of evolution by painting it as something that is impossible to believe in when, in fact, when you combine random mutations with the mechanism of natural selection, the theory is indeed quite plausible.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

So many errors............ Scientists are often arrogant in the extreme. They dismiss what they do not understand, usually ascribing it to some fact of evolution. When I was young, my 3 siblings had their tonsils were removed causing much suffering. Tonsils were supposed to be useless vestigial organs. Likewise the appendix. No one removes tonsils now and the appendix has been shown to have a real purpose.

So called junk DNA numbers are shrinking as more discoveries are made. We also share our DNA mice and cats. Even a banana has about 60% the same genes.

Car manufacturers have learned that it is far more efficient to have a common platform with modular components than to have a unique design for every vehicle. So to do the same with DNA makes perfect sense to me. Humans have 3 billion base pairs. 0.1% makes up the differences such as eye and hair and skin colour. Onions have 12 times as much DNA as humans. You would imagine with all that DNA, they would evolve into something amazing. Nope. There are different varieties of onion, but onions they remain. I don't know why people won't take God at His word. Science is proven to be fallible, with sinners lying and cheating to try and get fame and fortune, arrogant scientists looking down their noses at the rest of us - - the same as any other human endeavour. I don't say every scientist is corrupt, that is not true. I do say that science is not the pure and noble pursuit of knowledge that is portrayed. "Peer reviewed" has little meaning these days. It's too easy to find the uncritical who will sign their names to a review.

So the gist of you position is that anyone who disagrees with you about how God accomplished His will are "sinners lying and cheating to try and get fame and fortune, arrogant scientists looking down their noses at the rest of us."
Thanks for the discussion, but I do not think that it a valid point against Theistic Evolution.

And I personally am taking God at His Word.

 

[steve78]

Humans are not even alone in the universe, so not even remotely unique.

Humans are Homo Sapiens. There have been many species of Homo Sapiens, all are now extinct except modern humans.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Humans are not even alone in the universe, so not even remotely unique.

Humans are Homo Sapiens. There have been many species of Homo Sapiens, all are now extinct except modern humans.

Caucasian humans (white) on the average have 2-3% Neanderthal genes. I have a little over 2%
Black humans have virtually no Neanderthal genes. This is because they came up in an area where there were no Neanderthals to mix with.
East Asian humans have a very small amount of Neanderthal genes if any at all. Again, they came up in an area where there were virtually no Neanderthals. However, many East Asians have Denisovan hominid genes. Neanderthal and Denisovan hominids vanished many millennia ago. But their genes live on in our own bodies.
Christians have nothing to fear from this knowledge. God in His wisdom and power caused these things to happen, and for good reason. Nothing in these facts contradicts the Biblical account. He created living things to adapt and survive. Even science cannot fully explain how this mechanism works. But we know it does, and God is to be glorified for it.

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan said:

bacteria does not turn into amoeba
Nor does it become a rabbit over time given enough time and chance

Strawman. Evolution does not operate in this way.

In fact it does not work at all.

But if you are wildly suggesting that evolutionists do not know that they start with "bacteria world" and then somehow have to "come up with " -- eukaryotes... and the from there on up the ladder of taxonomy to "rabbit" -- feel free to tell us about it ... better yet - document where we find an alternative.

Evolution also requires the mechanism of natural section as well.

No doubt. And I am very happy have my statement assumed to be "bacteria does not turn into amoeba
Nor does it become a rabbit over time given enough time and chance events withing extinction, predation, competition schemes of natural selection".

I think that is a valid "given" for my statement.

You are misrepresenting the theory of evolution by painting it as something that is impossible

because it is impossible.

and the long running evolution experiment shows that after 80,000 generations under direct observation - bacteria-world does not come up with a single eukaryote even though that is more generations than supposedly was needed to evolve humans.

in fact, when you combine random mutations with the mechanism of natural selection, the theory is indeed quite plausible.

In 80,000 generations they had all the random mutation and natural selection one could hope for.

 

[BobRyan]

Humans are not even alone in the universe, so not even remotely unique.

Humans are Homo Sapiens. There have been many species of Homo Sapiens, all are now extinct except modern humans.

Is it your argument that "it just so happens" that all humans trace back to exactly 1 "y-chromosome Adam" and exactly 1 "Mitochondrial Eve"?

Seriously?

Is there any point where science fact breaks through the stories of evolutionism for the evolutionist?

 

[steve78]

Is it your argument that "it just so happens" that all humans trace back to exactly 1 "y-chromosome Adam" and exactly 1 "Mitochondrial Eve"?

Seriously?

Is there any point where science fact breaks through the stories of evolutionism for the evolutionist?

My argument is that Adam and Eve is just pure rubbish and disproved by science. God however does not lie so this suggests that the young earth view is flawed.

 

[steve78]

Good point.

bacteria does not turn into amoeba
Nor does it become a rabbit over time given enough time and chance
Nor do non-human primates turn into humans, not even an early-primate could do it.

Bacteria and Virus change. Evolution at work. Human DNA is almost indentical 99% to a Chimpanzee. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. If evolution was not real then Covid 19 would not have mutated into various strains that caused havoc around the world.

 

[BobRyan]

Bacteria and Virus change.

Indeed they do - so this is the ideal for evolutionism's story telling. The problem is that with one of the most adaptable genetic designs on the planet - those pesky bacteria do not "evolve" from prokaryote bacteria to an actual eukaryote like an amoeba.. wouldn't you know it? When all the numbers are stacked in evolutionism's favor - it still does not happen!! How sad for them.

Evolution at work.

Indeed it is at work showing us how bacteria do not "evolve" up that ladder of taxonomy - nope not even to the next level - eukayrote. Nope not even with 80,000 generations to do it in.

Human DNA is almost indentical 99% to a Chimpanzee.

For the evolutionist that is true except the part - that is not true.
So in other words for the evolutionist 99% is true - except for the part where in fact it is only 70% that is similar.

They get their 99% numbers by “cherry picking” the data. So then only segments of the DNA shared by chimps and humans were compared, so naturally, they would be very similar. Then they published that rigged number to dupe the students that read their "report" that was skewed towards faith in evolutionism -- facts be sent to the back of the bus so no one would suspect that it is really only about 70%!!

What kind of "science" does that???

The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.

It is overwhelming that the story falls apart when you look at the data.

If evolution was not real then Covid 19 would not have mutated into various strains that caused havoc around the world.

That's like saying "if fish did not evolve into rabbits then Covid 19 would not have mutated".

 

[expos4ever]

BobRyan said:

In fact it does not work at all.

Why would you expect people to believe you - someone with an obvious agenda to defend Biblical literacy - over the informed view of tens of thousands of highly trained experts?

You might as well ask to believe the moon is made of green cheese.

But if you are wildly suggesting that evolutionists do not know that they start with "bacteria world" and then somehow have to "come up with " -- eukaryotes... and the from there on up the ladder of taxonomy to "rabbit" -- feel free to tell us about it ... better yet - document where we find an alternative.

Strawman - I never suggested anything of the sort. You are using the 'argument from incredulity', the notion that a proposition must be false because it contradicts one's personal expectations or beliefs, or is difficult to imagine.

No doubt. And I am very happy have my statement assumed to be "bacteria does not turn into amoeba
Nor does it become a rabbit over time given enough time and chance events withing extinction, predation, competition schemes of natural selection".

I think that is a valid "given" for my statement.

Why would it be a "valid given"? Do you think readers will not be highly suspicious as to why you omitted "natural selection" from your characterization? Is it a coincidence that the thing you omitted to tell us was the one component that renders the entire package to be highly plausible? Yes, if someone were to say that evolution is driven purely by "chance and time", that would be clearly rather difficult to believe. But when you add in a non-random, highly plausible process that - natural selection - the entire package makes a lot more sense.

because it is impossible.

Why? Why is it impossible?

 

[expos4ever]

So many errors............ Scientists are often arrogant in the extreme. They dismiss what they do not understand, usually ascribing it to some fact of evolution. When I was young, my 3 siblings had their tonsils were removed causing much suffering. Tonsils were supposed to be useless vestigial organs. Likewise the appendix. No one removes tonsils now and the appendix has been shown to have a real purpose.

First, your claim that scientists "dismiss what they do not understand" is not correct. You will not be able to produce a single instance of reputable scientist saying anything like this.

Second, what, exactly, are you implying? That science is somehow a lesser path to knowledge because it does not get things right the first time? That would be a decidedly bizarre position since it is so overwhelmingly obvious we typically gain knowledge through trial and error.

I don't know why people won't take God at His word.

One of the most pernicious aspects of fundamentalism is the insistence on taking all Scripture as literal truth. Well, we know that does not work. Consider this from Isaiah:

10For the stars of heaven and their constellations
Will not flash forth their light;
The sun will be dark when it rises
And the moon will not shed its light

This text is prophesying the fall of Babylon, something that has already happened. Did the stars go out? Did the moon stop shining? Of course not.

Science is proven to be fallible, with sinners lying and cheating to try and get fame and fortune, arrogant scientists looking down their noses at the rest of us

Science fallible? Yes, sometimes. But what human undertaking is infallible?

The rest of your claim is an easy generalization to make - anybody could say this about anything. Where is your evidence that such problems are systematic and / or widespread?

"Peer reviewed" has little meaning these days. It's too easy to find the uncritical who will sign their names to a review.

Again, an easy sentence to roll off the keyboard. Do you have any evidence that peer review is deeply flawed in this way? One or two examples do not make the case.

 

[Tropical Wilds]

Did Humans’ Unique Skeletal Architecture Evolve? – CEH

crev.info

There is no evidence to suggest that apes evolved into humans. In spite of researcher's best efforts, all they can come up with is termes like "likely", "may have" and "suggest" when attempting to force the square peg of evolution into the round hole of Creation. Read and enjoy!

Science doesn’t say apes evolved into humans. It says chimpanzees and humans share common ancestors.

 

[expos4ever]

For the evolutionist that is true except the part - that is not true.
So in other words for the evolutionist 99% is true - except for the part where in fact it is only 70% that is similar.

Citation please.

Here is what Dr. Steven Novella, MD, writes in the Genetic Literacy Project has to say on this "only 70%" business (emphasis added):

I was recently asked to respond to an apologist page that challenged the scientific claim that human and chimpanzee DNA are very similar, which is evidence that we are descended from a recent common ancestor. You have probably heard the claim that human and chimp DNA are 96% the same. The apologist was referencing the work of Jeffrey Tomkins in his “peer reviewed” study showing that there is only 70 percent similarity. In fact, the the DNA of chimps and humans are so different, Tomkins claims, that there would not have been enough time for evolution to account for all the changes.

This is what I like to call, “sophisticated nonsense.” The very purpose of pseudoscience such as this is to confuse the public with complicated arguments that only scientists are likely to understand. We can turn such pseudoscience, however, into teachable moments.

So how does Tomkins come up with 70 percent. Well, he is not comparing point mutations of aligned segments. He is comparing chromosomes to see how many segments line up to some arbitrary amount. As many others have already pointed out, this result is not wrong, it’s just irrelevant. Well, it might also be wrong. Others have found it difficult to reproduce his results. But even if his analysis is accurate, it is simply the wrong analysis to apply to dating the last common ancestor.

 

[BobRyan]

Citation please.

Here is what Dr. Steven Novella, MD, writes in the Genetic Literacy Project has to say on this "only 70%" business (emphasis added):

I was recently asked to respond to an apologist page that challenged the scientific claim that human and chimpanzee DNA are very similar, which is evidence that we are descended from a recent common ancestor. You have probably heard the claim that human and chimp DNA are 96% the same. The apologist was referencing the work of Jeffrey Tomkins in his “peer reviewed” study showing that there is only 70 percent similarity. In fact, the the DNA of chimps and humans are so different, Tomkins claims, that there would not have been enough time for evolution to account for all the changes.

Sounds like a problem for believers in evolutionism.

So how does Tomkins come up with 70 percent. Well, he is not comparing point mutations of aligned segments. He is comparing chromosomes to see how many segments line up

As noted in my post. Instead of just limiting his review to

to some arbitrary amount. As many others have already pointed out, this result is not wrong, it’s just irrelevant. Well, it might also be wrong. Others have found it difficult to reproduce his results. But even if his analysis is accurate, it is simply the wrong analysis to apply to dating the last common ancestor.

They get their 99% numbers by “cherry picking” the data. So then only segments of the DNA shared by chimps and humans were compared, so naturally, they would be very similar. Then they published that rigged number to dupe the students that read their "report" that was skewed towards faith in evolutionism -- facts be sent to the back of the bus so no one would suspect that it is really only about 70%!!
What kind of "science" does that???

If ask a human to dress up like a turtle, shark, giraffe, elephant... the first thing you have to do is "put the human inside a box" then attached things to the box and paint it to look like a turtle, shark, giraffe, elephant.

But if you want a human to look like a chimp, or gorilla - all you have to do is put them in a hairy suit (planet of the Apes style). Because obviously the body plans of human and chimp/ape/gorilla are similar enough to pull that off with just a hair suit of sorts. No matter that arms, hips and legs are slightly different.

The DNA for identical twins is more similar than the DNA for siblings years apart and the farther apart in distant family members the more differences. But we expect more similarities with animals having a similar body plan than we do between humans and turtles - obviously.

The reason for the 99% "the same" argument is that evolutionism's story-telling needs a story that makes it sound like "just 1% change and wallah! you have a human" when they know full well that truth of only having 70% alignment makes ape-to-human appear to be a gap much larger.

Why not point that out in their 98% article? hmm .. maybe because it would "inform the reader" too much?