Uncommon Descent: The Sudden Appearance of Homo sapians

[Jimmy The Hand]

Please define smooth transition.

Thanks.

 

[Douglaangu v2.0]

Because you cannot falsify it.

Thats why its a god of the gaps.
Anything that isn't completely understood, "Goddidit".

Where does lighting come from? Goddidit.
How does the sun rise everyday? Goddidit.
How did homo sapiens develop into Homo sapiens sapiens? Goddidit.

How many more things need to be explained without divine intervention before you admit that "Goddidit" not useful, constructive, or even an answer?

 

[Nathan Poe]

Modern man was created because God wanted to become a part of His creation.

God is a modern man?

 

[notto]

I don't understand why the postulation that God did it is so vexing.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

Ross isn't just saying God did it. Ross is saying how (or at least sort of attempting to in an untestable way) and when God did it.

If he is making claims of how and when God does things, and wants to address it scientifically, then it needs to be falsifiable.

Otherwise, it is just God of the Gaps.

 

[Matthew777]

Ross isn't just saying God did it. Ross is saying how (or at least sort of attempting to in an untestable way) and when God did it.

If he is making claims of how and when God does things, and wants to address it scientifically, then it needs to be falsifiable.

Otherwise, it is just God of the Gaps.

Have you finished reading the article? Do you find any of it surprising?

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[notto]

Have you finished reading the article? Do you find any of it surprising?

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

What I find surprising is that he is making assertions that he can't back up. I guess if every detail of his scenario is correct, he might have a point, but he has no evidence to show us that we will not find the things missing as we continue to search. We have a long way to go. He is making a very premature prediction. At least it is one that can be falsified but what do you think Ross will do when we find that missing specimin?. Will he admit that his theory has been falsified and that God didn't specially create man? He sets up God to be falsified, but he will never let that happen. He will just move his date to another whole in our knowledge. Simple God of the Gaps. Poor theology and poor science.

Let's take a look. Notice a few things. He calls the fossil record sparce - okay, we haven't looked everywhere. He calls it unclear - okay so it is UNLCEAR. He then takes these two vague things and next we know, they are absent from the fossil record (has he looked everywhere?) and their appearance can only be accounted for by special creation.

Has he learned nothing from the coelecanth?


The fossil evidence clearly shows that at about 40,000 years ago, there was an explosive appearance of Cro-Magnon man. Cro-Magnon man is indistinguishable from modern humans (Homo sapiens sapiens).60 Prior to the sudden appearance of Cro-Magnon man, the fossil record is extremely sparse and unclear.

If these specimens are not true humans, then the absence of Homo sapiens in the fossil record between 40,000 and 80,000 years ago may actually represent the extinction of those particular species of bipedal primates, or reflect the fact that Homo sapiens sapiens did not appear on earth until about 40,000 years ago. If this is the case, then, the sudden appearance of modern man at 40,000 years ago can be attributed to the special creation of man by the Creator.

 

[Matthew777]

I wouldn't necessarily call his view "special creation", or at least not in the sense of creation ex nihilo:

"The Biblical Scenario18
The creation account of man in Genesis 1:26-27 states, "Let us make (asah) man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the image of God, he created (bara) him; male and female he created (bara) them.

The words in parentheses are the ancient Hebrew words that are translated into English as the word create. The Hebrew definitions of these words have direct bearing on this discussion.19

Asah - to make, create. It is used in the sense of fashioning an already created object.

Bara - to create, bring about, to bring into existence out of nothing. Indicates a new creative act not a refashioning of an existing object.

The creation of man is described using two different verbs in the Hebrew. One verb (asah) means to fashion using a substance already in existence. The other verb (bara) means to bring something into existence that never existed before. We would suggest that the verb asah accounts for man's biochemical and morphological similarity to other primates.20 While the verb bara considers man's unique qualities, such as awareness of absolute right and wrong, concern about death and beyond, a tendency towards worship of that which is outside of nature, and self-awareness. These spiritual qualities cause man to bear God's image and give man his unique standing among all living creatures in the animal kingdom. They were unique, miraculous creations of God, created as fully developed human beings, with DNA distinct from any creature. While humans may have shared physical similarities with other creatures, they were not simply hominids with a spirit.

Biblical dating of man’s origins using genealogies in Genesis puts his first appearance at tens of thousands of years ago, but no later. These genealogies are incomplete but adequate for their intended purposes in the text. The biblical account describes humans as originating from a single geographical region. Moreover, it requires the sudden appearance of modern man in the fossil and archeological record and no clear connection with any other bipedal primate. (This does not mean that man does not share anatomical or biochemical features in common with hominids, but rather that there is no clear evolutionary connection to other hominids."
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/humanevolution.shtml?main

What about this statement do you disagree with?

 

[Vance]

First of all, I like Ross a lot, since he is really making an effort to fit the evidence we see with the Bible. And his work showing the age of the earth is invaluable. But, when it comes to biology and anthropology, he is letting his presumptions control his reading of the evidence, rather than do as he does with the age of the earth.

First of all, "sudden" is in evolutionary terms, not in absolute terms.

Second, there is, indeed, a fairly smooth transition among the homo line leading up to h. sapiens.

Third, when studying the process of evolution of Man, you would expect there to be a point of "critical mass", combined with the dynamic interplay of events to create HUGE jumps in the artistic, creative, and technological ability. Look at periods of stasis and expansion in historical times. Look at right now, at the pace of change compared to the pace of change in the middle ages. Would somebody viewing this history 1,000 years from now assume that there was some type of divine intervention around the turn of the century?

Fourth, even if every conclusion of Ross' was correct, it would MUCH more likely point to God taking some type of divine action on an existing species, rather than specially creating a new one. Why? Ross actually has trouble with this point IIRC from one of his papers (I have read the stuff on his site fairly extensively in the past, but not recently, and I admit I did not read all the article you quoted since I am sure I have read it before). He wondered why God would make a series of hominids that SEEM to lead right up to humans, in progressive order, then create modern humans separately.

If we accept that God created using the process of evolution for every other life form, then I don't see a need for Him to create Man specially. Yes, I believe He did something special with or to Mankind, which was symbolically described as "breathing" in Scripture (since Scripture IS referring to actual events, albeit using symbology and typology and wonderful poetry). But I think that the evidence from the fossil record makes it very difficult to conclude that Man is completely separate from the rest of the hominid line.

 

[notto]

I wouldn't necessarily call his view "special creation", or at least not in the sense of creation ex nihilo:

"The Biblical Scenario18
The creation account of man in Genesis 1:26-27 states, "Let us make (asah) man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground. So God created (bara) man in his own image, in the image of God, he created (bara) him; male and female he created (bara) them.

The words in parentheses are the ancient Hebrew words that are translated into English as the word create. The Hebrew definitions of these words have direct bearing on this discussion.19

Asah - to make, create. It is used in the sense of fashioning an already created object.

Bara - to create, bring about, to bring into existence out of nothing. Indicates a new creative act not a refashioning of an existing object.

The creation of man is described using two different verbs in the Hebrew. One verb (asah) means to fashion using a substance already in existence. The other verb (bara) means to bring something into existence that never existed before. We would suggest that the verb asah accounts for man's biochemical and morphological similarity to other primates.20 While the verb bara considers man's unique qualities, such as awareness of absolute right and wrong, concern about death and beyond, a tendency towards worship of that which is outside of nature, and self-awareness. These spiritual qualities cause man to bear God's image and give man his unique standing among all living creatures in the animal kingdom. They were unique, miraculous creations of God, created as fully developed human beings, with DNA distinct from any creature. While humans may have shared physical similarities with other creatures, they were not simply hominids with a spirit.

Biblical dating of man’s origins using genealogies in Genesis puts his first appearance at tens of thousands of years ago, but no later. These genealogies are incomplete but adequate for their intended purposes in the text. The biblical account describes humans as originating from a single geographical region. Moreover, it requires the sudden appearance of modern man in the fossil and archeological record and no clear connection with any other bipedal primate. (This does not mean that man does not share anatomical or biochemical features in common with hominids, but rather that there is no clear evolutionary connection to other hominids."
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apologetics/humanevolution.shtml?main

What about this statement do you disagree with?

He is absolutely describing man as being specially created exnihilo if this is his view. I think you need to keep reading Ross and you will find that this is exactly his view. Remember, he uses the complete extinction of other related species before the emergence of modern humans as evidence for his views.

I also think that his distinction between early man and the practices we know of neanderthal are without merit.

Neanderthal used tools and buried their dead. His comments on the religious practices of early man or neanderthal or their lack of them is simply unsupported.

 

[gluadys]

I don't understand why the postulation that God did it is so vexing.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

It is not vexing as a statement of faith.

But as a scientific proposition it has no scientific usefulness.

 

[Matthew777]

Fourth, even if every conclusion of Ross' was correct, it would MUCH more likely point to God taking some type of divine action on an existing species, rather than specially creating a new one.

This is the conclusion I have made from reading Ross between the lines.

May peace be upon thee and with hty spirit.

 

[Matthew777]

He is absolutely describing man as being specially created exnihilo if this is his view. I think you need to keep reading Ross and you will find that this is exactly his view. Remember, he uses the complete extinction of other related species before the emergence of modern humans as evidence for his views.

And what does this evidence mean to you? Could Ross be right?

 

[notto]

And what does this evidence mean to you? Could Ross be right?

Sure he could be right. I don't think the evidence leans his way and he takes quite a few liberties with it (actually he uses lack of evidence as evidence). Young earth creationists and Raelians could be right as well. They take a few liberties with evidence too (again using lack of evidence as proof). All great examples of poor science mixed with poor theology.

 

[Matthew777]

Sure he could be right. I don't think the evidence leans his way and he takes quite a few liberties with it (actually he uses lack of evidence as evidence). Young earth creationists and Raelians could be right as well. They take a few liberties with evidence too (again using lack of evidence as proof). All great examples of poor science mixed with poor theology.

Then what do you think is right?
You've attacked other people positions but I have yet to notice you state what you actually believe.
And please, at least try to include God in the equation.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[notto]

Then what do you think is right?
You've attacked other people positions but I have yet to notice you state what you actually believe.
And please, at least try to include God in the equation.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

I accept mainstream science and what it tells us about our creation and how we evolved.

Spiritually I believe in God and that God created.

What I believe includes God. What I accept as science and what it tells us about the creation is backed by evidence.

I don't think that using poor science or gaps in scientific knowledge is a good way to approach God or to understand him and it certainly isn't a good way to evangelize.

When the Gaps of that type of evangelism are filled in, it can only push people away from God if they accept the false notion that science can prove or falsify God.

Now, if something like ID could actually provide an objective method of testing for God, that would be interesting, but up untill now, the movement has not provided any, and much like Hugh Ross, depend on gaps in knowledge to point to God. This hasn't been a good approach to God in the past and I think it is just as poor now. It is no different than saying that spirits cause disease through supernaural means or that earthquakes are a specific wrath from God to destroy pornographers.

 

[mikeynov]

Weird angle. Creationists seized upon a story a month or so back from one published paper that suggested that all of genus Homo (and maybe even some of the Australopithecines) may not have been anatomically different enough to qualify as separate species (though that line is inherently blurry).

Now we have Ross arguing that Homo sapiens sapiens aren't similar enough to the archaic forms of H. sapiens and our closest relatives (Heidelbergensis and Neanderthalensis I believe) to suggest a pattern of descent?

The conclusions (implicit and otherwise) of Ross' work here are truly bizarre - how this supports creation/divine intervention/the supernatural in the slighest is beyond me. All it really suggests is that there's periods of time in our own ancestry that we can't account for.

Can't account for = divine intervention? How...convenient.

Note that this logic could be used to support basically any supernatural creation account ever - and given what we know of human ancestry and how dissimilar it is to even the most cross-eyed interpretation of Genesis imaginable, I'm not seeing it a good fit for Christian apologists.

 

[Matthew777]

Can't account for = divine intervention? How...convenient.

This could be an example of rapid evolutionary change that only could have been guided by the providence of God.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

 

[danaman5]

This could be an example of rapid evolutionary change that only could have been guided by the providence of God.

(italics mine)

The key words there are could be. Anything could be true. Now you have to gather actual evidence instead of lack of evidence.

 

[notto]

This could be an example of rapid evolutionary change that only could have been guided by the providence of God.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.

So bascially, God of the Gaps. When the gap is filled in, what does that mean?

 

[Matthew777]

So bascially, God of the Gaps. When the gap is filled in, what does that mean?

That God intentionally made a universe where such a seemingly random event is possible, knowing full well what the outcome would be.

May peace be upon thee and with thy spirit.