What if we were just to say that, yes there were many human like creatures alive, but this "Eve" was the first to be endowed with a spiritual component?
That's what Pope John Paul implied in his official statement on evolution being "compatible" with Christianity a few years ago, and seems to be the position adopted by lots of theists. My only problem with that is trying to identify a "spiritual component."
INSTEAD I WOULD RECOMMED ONE TRY TO FIGURE OUT in its stead HOW PHYSICAL I WOULD DISPUTE THESE TWO LINES OF TEXT rather than trying to pay for making EVC part of every school boys lunch box image.
quote: The philosophy is in the tradition of Leibniz. Wright's view is that there is no material basis for a mysterious "emergence" of new properties as systems become more complex.
The philosophy DOES MATTER. Where is any one teaching students what Kant thought of Leibniz AFTER viewing AN INSECT in the microscope? I will go kicking and screaming over the first sentence. While the second is a attempt to parly the creative reading necessary to write the first with a revisionist provision in the second. It matters a mite not if I might explain with programmed cell death how we ate the answer to the spirit needed to disscuss the different IDEAS on time mitocondira might afford the thought speculator but alas even creation science must get practical. Let us not tilt at the marketer's windmill if we insist on the philosophy else we must not dismiss the metaphyical repose that EVC already afFORDANCes society. IT DOES and did! Sure the transfinites in Robinsonian infintesimals might span the formed gap but who knows....
Alos DO NOTE that JAD's TEACHER Crow did not eat this but said IN THES SAME
quote: Wright’s intellectual life extended far beyond the normal range in both directions. He was also a precocious child.
For Will Provine who needed to scope the space of UChicago into a the door of the Jehova's Witness entrance this was just the difference of the Ag quad and the Engineering Quadrangle TIMED walk at Cornell WHICH USED TO BE A FARM before it was taken from the indians as a cornfield. Info from http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/unitarians/wright-sewall.html note to admins- that is my attempt to stop -off topic posting as it is not at all clear to me that a NUMBER will provide the SPIRIT of a difference between Kant and Newton as to the diffusion or electricity involved.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 11-18-2004 11:22 AM
Unless I am missing something, the study is saying...
Yes, you are missing something, which is that it isn't the study saying this, but the Reasons to Believe article about the study (Chromosome Study Stuns Evolutionists). PaulK referenced this article to point out a few of its serious errors. And so...
that none of these long gone species had any affect on modern man because there was found to be "no nucleotide differences at all in the non-recombinant part of the Y chromosomes of the 38 men. This non-variation suggests no evolution has occurred in male ancestry." quote from the referenced article
...you're just quoting more erroneous statements from the same Reasons to Believe article about the study. I assume that you also uncritically accepted the next sentence that said, "The researchers, apparently committed to Darwinism, back-pedaled...etc...", and so you're at the same time buying into the conspiracy nonsense that the evidence is against evolution, but thousands and thousands of scientists for decades and decades are covering it up and continuing to accept evolution anyway.
DNA polymorphism in the Y chromosome, examined at a 729-base pair intron located immediately upstream of the ZFY zinc-finger exon, revealed no sequence variation in a worldwide sample of 38 human males. This finding cannot be explained by global constraint on the intron sequence, because interspecific comparisons with other nonhuman primates revealed phylogenetically informative sequence changes. The invariance likely results from either a recent selective sweep, a recent origin for modern Homo sapiens, recurrent male population bottlenecks, or historically small effective male population sizes. A coalescence model predicts an expected time to a most recent common ancestral male lineage of 270,000 years (95 percent confidence limits: 0 to 800,000 years).
Note that the paper covers a "729 base-pair intron", while the Y chromosome contains over 50 million base pairs. Even if the study had any contradictory results (which it doesn't), a single study's results on such a tiny portion of the Y chromosome wouldn't be considered stunning. The Reasons to Believe article is wrong to say scientists are stunned, since the results weren't stunning but were fairly consistent with other studies. Note also that Ross mentions only one of the four possibilities that the study lists for the cause of the invariance. And note also that Ross critisizes them for using a statistical approach when no other approach is possible when the sample size is 38. All these types of studies use statistical approaches.
You would be poorly served to put much reliance on Reasons to Believe to accurately represent the results of any genetic study. Magazines and newspapers like the New York Times, Newsweek, Time, the Boston Globe, and so on, all have science sections that love to follow this Adam/Eve research, and I suggest you wait until they report on stunned scientists before believing it.