|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Chimpanzee-human genetic gap | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
I tried. You should read the thread. It was a disaster - ending with Carico leaving the boards never to return.
He (She?) just can not handle the idea that the word "apes" refers to a group of animals which include people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
In any case, my aim was not to derail this thread, but rather to get you to define your terms. Now that you have done so, I see that there is little need to worry myself with your arguments, which are against a series of straw men. Let me interpret: you are unable to refute. To deflect from this fact you misrepresent...because of the inability to refute. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Belfry Member (Idle past 5116 days) Posts: 177 From: Ocala, FL Joined: |
quote:You seem fond of the "special pleading" fallacy, though you misuse it. Perhaps you should look up the "straw man" fallacy. I have no wish to refute your arguments, because they're made against an opposing argument that you have fabricated, and that does not represent the actual views of biologists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
I don't know if this topic has slipped from memory due to other concerns, if you are going to get back to it when you have more time, or if you have lost interest. I would like to reiterate my desire to come to as much agreement as we can do. This thread works in conjunction with Message 162. The basic fundamental question that we need to get a clear answer on is:
quote: 'Yes, but...' is a good answer.'No, because' is fine. 'Why would we assume macroevolution true unless there is no evidence?' is not an answer. The purpose of this thread has become 'What does the chimpanzee-human gap mean?'. If we assume the Bible is literally true so that all species do not share a common ancestor then what does this gap mean? Common designer? OK, we can test the validity of that conclusion. However, if we assume the science is good and that all species do share a common ancestor then what does this gap mean? I say that in this case the c/h genetic gap would indicate that humans and chimpanzees are the closest related. Maybe the word assumption is where we fall over? Perhaps it would be better to put it in terms of premises? Premise 1: All species share a common ancestor P2: The more similar the DNA, the closer the relationship Observation: Of all species, the chimpanzee's DNA is most similar to human DNA Conclusion: Chimpanzees are the closes relative of humans, and thus share the most recent common ancestor. Without commenting on the validity of the premises, do you agree with this simple logic?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
I will definetly get back to you - tomorrow.
Thanks for your reply. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
This is a very good post I am replying to. Very objective.
The purpose of this thread has become 'What does the chimpanzee-human gap mean?'. Agreed.
If we assume the Bible is literally true so that all species do not share a common ancestor then what does this gap mean? Negative. The question is: Is there any valid reason or basis to assume Bible/Genesis not true concerning origins ? The gap means there is no reason or basis. We are talking about 5 MILLION years. Next question: How massive must the gap be before common ancestry is falsified ? IOW, evolutionists are essentially remaining loyal to worldview needs despite the evidence. My point: common ancestry is a atheistic philosophical concept, shielded from its unscientific nature by a deliberate mis-classification: that it is science. 5 million years is exempting oneself from any objective criteria of falsification. The Bible explains why persons would believe such improbabilities but it is off-topic.
However, if we assume the science is good and that all species do share a common ancestor then what does this gap mean? I say that in this case the c/h genetic gap would indicate that humans and chimpanzees are the closest related. Agreed. The next question then becomes: Which worldview best explains ALL of the evidence ? The secular worldview has no explanation for textual Genesis evidence except to retreat into rhetoric about it being "religious truth only". If religious truth can do the hardest (change hearts and lives) then what it says about origins must be true. We know it is true about origins because Science has corroborated. Only Darwinists disagree. The Bible explains that too - off topic. The paper I am currently writing answers this question. You will be surprised to see where in the Bible common ancestry and hominid fossils show up. Because of WHEN the Bible was written, and what it says about things that did not exist when it was written = proof of God/miracles/truth of His eternal word. I expect to be finished in March or April. Text will be about 300 kilobytes. IOW, objective Darwinists and agnostics still have a few months to get some sleep. Ray This message has been edited by Herepton, 01-14-2006 01:42 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Premise 1: All species share a common ancestor P2: The more similar the DNA, the closer the relationship Observation: Of all species, the chimpanzee's DNA is most similar to human DNA Conclusion: Chimpanzees are the closes relative of humans, and thus share the most recent common ancestor. Without commenting on the validity of the premises, do you agree with this simple logic? Yes. Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
This is a very good post I am replying to. Very objective. Thank you, sometimes it pays to try approaching a topic from another angle.
However, if we assume the science is good and that all species do share a common ancestor then what does this gap mean? I say that in this case the c/h genetic gap would indicate that humans and chimpanzees are the closest related.
Agreed.
OK, good, we have agreement here. The next question would be something like the following: 'Is there another way to examine possible relatedness, assuming common ancestry?' I say that morphology/cladistics is another method we can use to judge relatedness...unique traits would help classify species so that the species that share the most unique traits would be more closely related. If common ancestry is true, I believe that this method should give us good clues as to which modern organisms are most related. Do you agree that morphology can give us these clues, if common ancestry were true? I believe that this might be where the stumbling block rears its head. In answer to your questions (I don't want to ask you questions and avoid yours, that would be bad form )
Is there any valid reason or basis to assume Bible/Genesis not true concerning origins ? It depends on what you'd call valid. I don't think there is a valid reason to assume Genesis is not true concerning origins...I think that would be insulting to the millions of people that have accepted, and continue to accept it as true. However, I'd say that are good reasons to critically reject the biblical hypothesis, no need to repeat them now, I'm sure you've heard them before. To say there are not good reasons to critically reject biblical hypothesis would likewise be insulting the millions of people that have done so.
How massive must the gap be before common ancestry is falsified ? I don't want to get too much into this right now, I discussed it before. It isn't the size of the gap, but the relative sizes of the gaps that would serve as falsification of common ancestry. One gap is not sufficient to conclude positively or negatively for common ancestry.
Which worldview best explains ALL of the evidence ? A good question, and the heart of the EvC debate. Probably too wide a scope to succintly answer. I guess it basically depends on what your philosophy is, and how it defines evidence etc.
If religious truth can do the hardest (change hearts and lives) then what is says about origins must be true. I don't think this follows. Hinduism changes hearts and lives, Buddhism does, Christianity does and pantheism does. They all have contradictory statements about origins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
Hi Ray, I thought I'd see if you're still interested in the topic - I appreciate its been over a week now so if you have lost interest its no problem.
The central gist of my latest post was 'Is there another way to examine possible relatedness, assuming common ancestry?' It is my contention that there is another way to examine relatedness with our assumption. If our assumption was right, we'd expect closely related species to look more similar than less closely related species. I know there are issues with convergent evolution, which we can discuss some other time, but to keep it simple, lets ignore that. If we assume common ancestry we should be able to detect relatedness through the use of morphology/cladistics. Agreed?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
'Is there another way to examine possible relatedness, assuming common ancestry?' I say that morphology/cladistics is another method we can use to judge relatedness...unique traits would help classify species so that the species that share the most unique traits would be more closely related. If common ancestry is true, I believe that this method should give us good clues as to which modern organisms are most related. Do you agree that morphology can give us these clues, if common ancestry were true? I believe that this might be where the stumbling block rears its head. Here is what you repeatedly seem to not understand: Let me first define terms: Evolution: interpretation of evidence which allegedly justifies the belief that Creationism is falsified. All life originated and gradually evolved from a common ancestor. Creationism: belief that the God of the Bible is the Creator, and the book of Genesis declares the origin of nature and its inhabitants to be the products of special creation acts of God, including mankind from the dust of the ground. The two worldviews are diametrically opposite: Genesis rules Darwin out and Darwin ruled Genesis out. Whatever Genesis says it says the exact opposite of common ancestry concept. Genesis says the "branches" were sudden miraculous creation acts from the "Trunk of God". Evolution says nature produced itself from the trunk of a common ancestor - no Creator involved. We can identify relatedness and commonality between species ad nauseum. None of this is in dispute. What is in dispute is speciation, also known as macroevolution, or Darwinian evolution, or just plain evolution. Everyone agrees that microevolution is a fact. Yet the voluminous identifications of relatedness and commonality between species still requires the massive assumption of macroevolution/speciation since there is no evidence of linkage. The assumption FOR macro is driven by worldview needs because evolution MUST be true since Creationism is not an option. Creationism is a fact because assumptions, no matter how logical - is not evidence. We know genetic homeostassis is a proven scientific fact. No experiment has ever breached this natural barrier. To assert it happens in the wild behind our backs when we are not looking is reliance on the assumption. The fossil record depicts genetic homeostassis: species suddenly appear, change slightly over time (microevolution) then disappear, followed by massive gaps = no speciation. Even Wallace departed the madness of Darwin and said the gap between man and ape intelligence can only be explained by Mind. We also know the farther back in calendar history = the smarter mankind was. This is exactly opposite of the Evolutionary scenario which has man progressively becoming smarter. The Bible says man began ultra-smart; then became real dumb, and has only regained his original intelligence over the last 400 years. Evolution cannot account for these historical facts. I'm sorry, your theory is all philosophy packaged as science and driven by atheistic needs. Ray This message has been edited by Herepton, 01-27-2006 01:47 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
What is in dispute is speciation Flat-out wrong. There's absolutely no dispute that speciation occurs. Where else would all the new species be coming from?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
Flat-out wrong. There's absolutely no dispute that speciation occurs. Where else would all the new species be coming from? A blind unconscious inantimate process ? If you have atheistic needs. If not, God is the Boss and Creator. Tell me Crashfrog, how does death produce life ? Ray
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Cold Foreign Object  Suspended Member (Idle past 3078 days) Posts: 3417 Joined: |
While you are at it why don't you also explain genetic homeostassis ?
Only experimentation determines scientific facts. These experiments have established a natural genetic barrier. New species are a fact. What is in dispute is how ? I defined speciation very carefully in my previous post, I think your quote mine destroyed this definition. Ray This message has been edited by Herepton, 01-27-2006 11:13 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1498 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
While you are at it why don't you also explain genetic homeostassis ? It's fairly well-understood as a natural mendelian consequence of sexual recombination. Why don't you explain why we only see homeostasis in sufficiently large populations? If it doesn't apply in some situations, how can it be your speciation-proof genetic barrier?
Only experimentation determines scientific facts. These experiments have established a natural genetic barrier. Which experiments? This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-27-2006 07:31 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Modulous Member Posts: 7801 From: Manchester, UK Joined: |
mod writes: I believe that this might be where the stumbling block rears its head. I guess I was right.
Here is what you repeatedly seem to not understand: I understand everything you listed Ray. Its perfectly simple and entirely irrelevant. After 750 posts in an EvC forum, you'd think I'd have a rough idea on the basics of the debate wouldn't you? We aren't debating what the debate is about. We are trying to agree what each 'side's' conclusion is regarding the chimpanzee-human genetic gap.
We can identify relatedness and commonality between species ad nauseum. None of this is in dispute. What is in dispute is speciation, also known as macroevolution, or Darwinian evolution, or just plain evolution. Speciation is not in dispute. Macroevolution is in dispute in these fora. However, that is not in debate in this thread, not yet anyway. The first thing we need to find agreement on is the meaning of the chimpanzee human genetic gap. THAT is what is in debate. As we agreed in Message 171:
The purpose of this thread has become 'What does the chimpanzee-human gap mean?'.
Agreed. At this point there is no debate about 'macroevolution'. We are examining what it means to evolutionists. As such we start with our assumption that all species share a common ancestor. Given this assumption we should be able to learn of relatedness by shared characteristics. A fairly simple idea. Do you agree that IF all species were related THEN we should be able to detected relatedness based on cladistics. I think the stumbling block is here because you might see where this is going. I hope this isn't the case, and I'm just being a cynic.
Everyone agrees that microevolution is a fact. Yet the voluminous identifications of relatedness and commonality between species still requires the massive assumption of macroevolution/speciation since there is no evidence of linkage. Trust me, if I manage to get agreement on the cladistics issue I will show you how this issue is dealt with. Premise 1: All species share a common ancestor P2: The more shared characteristics the closer the relationship Observation: Of all species, the high ape shares most characteristics with humans Conclusion: High apes are the closes relative of humans, and thus share the most recent common ancestor. This message has been edited by Modulous, Sat, 28-January-2006 02:37 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024