Humans are unique, not evolved

[The Barbarian]

In fact it does not work at all.

We observe it working all around us. This goes back to my observation that you don't know what biological evolution is. I've suggested that you find out before you presume to tell us about it. Could save a lot of embarrassment.

Sounds like a problem for believers in evolutionism.

The percentage varies, depending on how you count it. But this fact remains, no matter what method is used:
Whatever comparison you use, humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other genetically than either is related to any other ape.
No way to dodge that one.

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 weird thing is, sometimes I think you really think this is an honest critique of science. Bottom line?
Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other genetically than either is related to any other ape.

Try to find a way to deal with it.

 

[Aussie Pete]

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.

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 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?

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.

I'll address some of your other remarks later. This is a link to just one criticism of the peer review system.

Is it time to review, the review?

Academic peer review – that fundamental structure underpinning the very integrity of science itself – is in peril.

cosmosmagazine.com

 

[Aussie Pete]

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.

What you call evolution is not what Darwin had in mind. Evolutionists have been unable to demonstrate Darwinian evolution, so they resorted to a bit of trickery. What used to be called adaptation has become evolution. This false notion is used to "prove" Darwinian evolution. It's intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual evolution? This is what God has to say about it: Romans 1:21-23

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

Since the church age, there has been spiritual enlightenment of course. Even then, we are far from the ideal church as revealed in the Bible. However, the world for sure has not changed. Take gender fluidity, for example. The mental disorder of gender dysphoria becoming far more common. In many places, it is illegal to refuse to pander to the disordered. You have to go along with the fantasy.

Biological evolution slowed down? What does that even mean? Survival of the fattest, perhaps? It sure looks like it where I live. Obesity is a huge (pardon the pun) problem.

 

[The Barbarian]

What you call evolution is not what Darwin had in mind.

Well, that's a testable assumption. How did Darwin describe what we call biological evolution, and how does it differ from these cases? Let's take a look...

Evolutionists have been unable to demonstrate Darwinian evolution

The four elements of Darwinian evolution:

• More are born than can live to reproduce.
• Every organism is slightly different than its parents
• Some of these differences affect the chances of the organism surviving to reproduce.
• Over time, the useful differences tend to accumulate and the harmful ones tend to be removed from the population.

We see this going on everywhere? Do I really have to show some more examples?

What used to be called adaptation has become evolution.

This trick is a common one used by creationists. Adaptation is merely a change to fit environment. Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.

• A random mutation that is neither harmful nor useful in a population is evolution, but not adaptation.
• Getting suntanned after spending a lot of time in the sun is adaptation, but it's not evolution.
• A new allele that confers some resistance to a common disease in that environment is adaptation and evolution.

Some creationists attempt to conflate adaptation and evolution. It's intellectually dishonest.

 

[Presbyterian Continuist]

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.

Most evolutionists are Deist evolutionists, because although many believe that the universe is the product of the design of someone or something higher, greater, more powerful than anything we know, they say that this designer is having no more interaction with the universe, leaving it, and our world to run its own course.

A Theistic Evolutionist implies that after designing and creating the universe, the designer continues to have interaction with it. In fact, if He withdrew His support and involvement, the universe would disintegrate. Right down to the atomic level, what keeps the electrons revolving around the nucleus is His maintaining power. If He stopped, the atomic structure of everything would fail and we, along with the universe, would exist only in random protons and electrons.

 

[The Barbarian]

Most evolutionists are Deist evolutionists

Most I know are theists of some sort, with a good number of atheists. Not many deists, at least with the biologists I have known.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

What you call evolution is not what Darwin had in mind. Evolutionists have been unable to demonstrate Darwinian evolution, so they resorted to a bit of trickery. What used to be called adaptation has become evolution. This false notion is used to "prove" Darwinian evolution. It's intellectually dishonest.

Intellectual evolution? This is what God has to say about it: Romans 1:21-23

"For although they knew God, they neither glorified Him as God nor gave thanks to Him, but they became futile in their thinking and darkened in their foolish hearts. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images of mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles."

Since the church age, there has been spiritual enlightenment of course. Even then, we are far from the ideal church as revealed in the Bible. However, the world for sure has not changed. Take gender fluidity, for example. The mental disorder of gender dysphoria becoming far more common. In many places, it is illegal to refuse to pander to the disordered. You have to go along with the fantasy.

Biological evolution slowed down? What does that even mean? Survival of the fattest, perhaps? It sure looks like it where I live. Obesity is a huge (pardon the pun) problem.

We know today that Dawin had some things wrong about evolution, as he lacked knowledge about DNA and such.
Evolution doesn't negate Intelligent Design as atheist's believe.

Intellectual evolution could also be said to be the result of knowledge not known before.

As it is, Christians stopped persecuting heretics, Jews and so fourth as a result of their intellectual and spiritual evolution.

Interpret Scripture as you will, but I'll use the experts in my Church, the Catholic Church to interpret Scripture, which I trust
as being accurate.

 

[The Barbarian]

Interpret Scripture as you will, but I'll use the experts in my Church, the Catholic Church to interpret Scripture, which I trust
as being accurate.

The Church agrees with St. Paul who pointed out that nature is also an authoritative source of understanding about God. Here's what one Vatican commission found, led by Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

 

[QvQ]

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 Denison

Recently the Neanderthal DNA was found to have 46 chromosomes.
All Apes, every last one, has 48.
Humans are human based on that chromosome count, not on culture or eye/skin color.
All Humans, Africans, Europeans, Asians have 46 chromosomes.

That would mean that Neanderthals were 100% modern humans.

 

[SavedByGrace3]

Recently the Neanderthal DNA was found to have 46 chromosomes.
All Apes, Every Last One has 48.

A well known genetic event that moved primates closer to proto humans.
"Humans have 46 chromosomes, whereas chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan have 48. This major karyotypic difference was caused by the fusion of two ancestral chromosomes to form human chromosome 2 and subsequent inactivation of one of the two original centromeres. As a result of this fusion, sequences that once resided near the ends of the ancestral chromosomes are now located in the middle of chromosome 2, near the borders of bands 2q13 and 2q14.1. "

Genomic Structure and Evolution of the Ancestral Chromosome Fusion Site in 2q13–2q14.1 and Paralogous Regions on Other Human Chromosomes

Human chromosome 2 was formed by the head-to-head fusion of two ancestral chromosomes that remained separate in other primates. Sequences that once resided near the ends of the ancestral chromosomes are now interstitially located in 2q13–2q14.1. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

 

[QvQ]

A well known genetic event that moved primates closer to proto humans.

What Proto Humans?
Neanderthals have 46 chromosomes. That is Human
One thing I have always disliked about Darwin is racism.
Neanderthals, having a perhaps primitive culture" and different skin color, hair color, eye color were subhuman apes?
Proto Human..there is not and cannot be any such thing.
The Aborigines and Europeans are very different in body types, culture, hair and eyes but both are humans.
According to an earlier post, Europeans have 2% different DNA (genetic sequence )from Africans. That makes them 98% similar in genetic sequences. a larger difference than between chimps and humans.* Does that make one "proto?"
So what is the difference? What is genetically Human?
Humans have 46 chromosomes.
Apes have 48 chromosomes.

Neanderthal with Chromosome 46 is 100% human.

*Genetic sequence ..we may be 98% alike but that 2% difference means body type, hair color, eyes, all the differences betwixt and between but those DNA sequences mean very little compared to chromosome count.
And our difference from apes, same thing..DNA genetic sequence, very similar but the chromosome count is what separates the monkeys from the men

 

[The Barbarian]

One thing I have always disliked about Darwin is racism.

Darwin pointed out that the physical traits that distinguished races in his time were "unimportant" and in his opinion existed in humans before the races of his time existed. He also pointed out that all humans seemed to have the same mental facilities.

Although Darwin could not prove his opinion, the Human Genome Project has confirmed it; there is more genetic variation within races than there is between them.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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.

And apparently we share 98% of our DNA with pigs as well.

 

[BNR32FAN]

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?

Yeah I remember when scientists were saying that marijuana caused people to commit violent crimes like rape and murder when in reality it actually causes people to be too lazy to do any of those things and just put it off until later.

 

[returntosender]

But after all of that do you still believe God created whatever came first? Genesis would not be the beginning.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

The Church agrees with St. Paul who pointed out that nature is also an authoritative source of understanding about God. Here's what one Vatican commission found, led by Cardinal Ratzinger, later Pope Benedict XVI:

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the “Big Bang” and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5-4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution. While the story of human origins is complex and subject to revision, physical anthropology and molecular biology combine to make a convincing case for the origin of the human species in Africa about 150,000 years ago in a humanoid population of common genetic lineage. However it is to be explained, the decisive factor in human origins was a continually increasing brain size, culminating in that of homo sapiens. With the development of the human brain, the nature and rate of evolution were permanently altered: with the introduction of the uniquely human factors of consciousness, intentionality, freedom and creativity, biological evolution was recast as social and cultural evolution.

INTERNATIONAL THEOLOGICAL COMMISSION
COMMUNION AND STEWARDSHIP:
Human Persons Created in the Image of God*

Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God

And the debate continues between scientist.

Dr Lennox wrote a book on the subject

God's Undertaker: Has Science Buried God?​

which I'm not reading. It's complex, and I'm not understanding all of it.

However, what led me to get his book was an interview he gave on YouTube, which he stated that there isn't a
scientists in existence, who has created a living cell. Sure, they've created cells by bringing material together, but
haven't been able to create life. Dr Lennox maintains that it is only God who can give life.

 

[The Barbarian]

That seems to be the case so far. The earth brought forth life as God made it to do. But I'm of the opinion that it's a very bad practice to define God in terms of what man has been so far unable to do.

If scientists were able to produce a living cell from scratch, it wouldn't shake my faith in God at all. I worry for people who don't have that kind of faith.

 

[The Barbarian]

Yeah I remember when scientists were saying that marijuana caused people to commit violent crimes like rape and murder when in reality it actually causes people to be too lazy to do any of those things and just put it off until later.

Don't see that in the literature. Got a link for us? I'd really like to see that. I remember the school films like "Reefer Madness"; no scientific support whatever. And scientists knew it. The rumor started a long time ago, from the Iranian cult of assassins said to use hashish for their indoctrinations.

 

[Aussie Pete]

We observe it working all around us. This goes back to my observation that you don't know what biological evolution is. I've suggested that you find out before you presume to tell us about it. Could save a lot of embarrassment.

The percentage varies, depending on how you count it. But this fact remains, no matter what method is used:
Whatever comparison you use, humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other genetically than either is related to any other ape.
No way to dodge that one.


The weird thing is, sometimes I think you really think this is an honest critique of science. Bottom line?
Humans and chimpanzees are more closely related to each other genetically than either is related to any other ape.

Try to find a way to deal with it.

There is a bird in Australia called a Brush Turkey. The male creates a pile of twigs and leaves and suchlike. The pile begins to decompose and generate heat. The bird pushes its head into the pile in order to check the temperature. When it is in the right range, the female lays an egg in the mound. Too hot, and the egg will perish. Too cold and the result is the same.

If any of these steps are omitted, the lineage is terminated. An adult bird must somehow pass on the genetic information to an egg. The egg must survive. Somehow this bird must have all the knowledge it needs to create a mound, be aware of the need for correct temperature and know how to test for it. The problem is that the knowledge is required by the male, which does not exist as it has not been born. Evolutionists have only one argument: it happens because it happens. Except it does not.

Adaptation is not evolution. When I see a bird lay an egg and it turns out to be a turtle, I will change my mind. Of course, there has to be a turtle of the opposite sex in order fot the lineage to continue. Maybe this happens on Fantasy Island, but not in the real world.

I do exaggerate of course. I'm trying to show how ludicrous the theory of evolution is under close examination. Another example. Bacteria multiply at an astounding rate. Surely something new and unique should have evolved by now? There is nothing. Bacteria are still bacteria.

 

[The Barbarian]

If any of these steps are omitted, the lineage is terminated. An adult bird must somehow pass on the genetic information to an egg. The egg must survive. Somehow this bird must have all the knowledge it needs to create a mound, be aware of the need for correct temperature and know how to test for it. The problem is that the knowledge is required by the male, which does not exist as it has not been born. Evolutionists have only one argument: it happens because it happens. Except it does not.

Here, you merely doubt the power of God to make a universe in which complex behaviors can evolve. Your lack of faith is not an argument against reality.

Adaptation is not evolution.

Yes, but because you don't know what either is, you confuse the two.

Evolution is a change in allele frequencies in a population over time.
Adaptation is a change that makes an organism more fit in an environment.

• Getting a sun tan is adaptation, but not evolution.
• A new mutation that doesn't affect fitness is evolution, but not adaptation.
• A new mutation that provides protection against a parasite is evolution and adaptation.

Shouldn't be that difficult, but some people just can't get it.

When I see a bird lay an egg and it turns out to be a turtle, I will change my mind.

If that happened, evolutionary theory would be in big trouble. People who think they hate evolution don't even know what it is. That kind of thing happens in the fantasies of creationists, but not in the real world.

I do exaggerate of course.

Getting things wrong is not exaggeration. It's just getting things wrong. You're just showing how ludicrous creationist ideas seem on examination.

Bacteria multiply at an astounding rate. Surely something new and unique should have evolved by now?

For example, eukaryotes. Seems pretty new and unique to me. But we've observed bacteria evolve endosymbiotically, becoming an essential part of another organism like our mitochondria, or the chloroplasts in plants.

And given that prokaryotes are actually an independent domain, that would be like saying a human evolving from another ape isn't really evolution because they are still eukaryotes.

You may not know enough about biology to realize how ludicrous it is, but to anyone who paid attention in high school biology class, it's pretty funny.