Apes vs. Man What are your thoughts??

Ludvan,I have to take issue with you here. Caucasaians may be better protected against some forms of pneumonia, but not all. It can kill caucasians, it depends on the cause. Having your lungs full of water will kill.Can you cite any research that shows that europeans are less susceptible to some forms of pneumonia. I don't doubt that they/I/we are, this is an interest of mine, so any reference would be appreciated.Thanks in advance,Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

1) Why is it that, even though you admit to having minimal scientific knowledge, you feel comfortable dismissing the Theory of Evolution? If you dismiss it on religious grounds, I have no complaint, but to make the kind of statements from personal incredulity that you have implies that you also somehow are attempting to object to the Theory on logical grounds, even though you admittedly do not know much about it.

---

I admit to not being a scientist; not that I am ignorant of the subject. My name is not Richard Petty but I can drive a car. My position of YEC comes from both my religious position and my study of the subject.

quote:

---

2) Since you are using the word "kind" in what seems to be a somewhat scientific sense, perhaps you can define "kind" for me.

​

What I really want to be able to do is to know how (what parameters and criterion to use) to tell one "kind" from another.

---

Do you think a chicken and a pig are the same kind? Do you think an ape and a human are the same kind? What criterion would you use?

quote:

---

If you want to use the word "kind" in a descriptive, scientific way, first you must define it.

---

Perhaps we should define "kind" as those species which can reproduce together. I would say that a dog 'kind' and a cat 'kind' are two different 'kinds' because they cannot produce offspring together. Would you agree? So, apes and humans are different kinds. As stated earlier, although we see great variety within a 'kind' of species, there is no evidence to suggest that there is an evoulution to a different 'kind'.

​

[This message has been edited by Punisher, 02-27-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fred Williams:
To believe that a code can arise in a naturalistic medium is certainly a religious belief that requires far greater faith than believing in a code coming from an Intelligent Sender.

​

Perhaps you can identify one example of a code arising naturalistically in the history of man? The fact that there are no counter observations means that it is a valid law of nature that information cannot arise without a sender, or in a materialistic medium, as Dr Werner Gitt (an information scientist and Director at the German Institute of Technology) has proposed.

​

Information science is the nail in the coffin for Neo-Darwinism.

​

[This message has been edited by Fred Williams, 02-26-2002]

---

Sorry to point this out, but the basic problem with this reasoning,
and I have come across it before, is the belief that DNA
sequences are analagous to a 'code' (lay use of genetic code
aside).We perceive it as a code, because our brains function in a kind
of pattern recognition mode. We even see patterns in things (clouds,
flames, wood-chip wallpaper etc.) where no pattern genuinely
exists. It's in our nature to super-impose patterns over the
things which we observe. It's then up to our reasoning ability
to decide whether the pattern is genuine or an artefact of our
preceptions.So far as DNA goes::Only DNA sequences that favour life will cause life.Once the first of those got going (however that was) they replicated.Once replicating, they dominated the world.Once having dominion, they caused this debateThere is nothing far fetched about that. There is mounting
evidence that the first life 'could' (and I stress could) have
arisen through natural processes on the young(ish) earth.Some are even suggesting that the components of life originally
formed in deep space (which would go some way to explaining why
we get all those left-handed amino-acids) and came to earth
in comet-like blocks of ice during the formation of the solar
system.Saying that 'No codes arise without a sender' is the same as
saying 'Nothing complex was NOT designed.' It pre-supposes that
life WAS designed, otherwise life is the example of code/complexity
without a sender/designer.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
Perhaps we should define "kind" as those species which can reproduce together. I would say that a dog 'kind' and a cat 'kind' are two different 'kinds' because they cannot produce offspring together. Would you agree? So, apes and humans are different kinds. As stated earlier, although we see great variety within a 'kind' of species, there is no evidence to suggest that there is an evoulution to a different 'kind'.

​

[This message has been edited by Punisher, 02-27-2002]

---

Punisher, all you've done here is define species. Kinds is a broader concept where different species can be the same kind, Lions, Tigers, & tabby cats, etc. So, if Gorillas & Chimpanzees are in the same kind/baramin, what excludes humans from that group?Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Punisher, all you've done here is define species. Kinds is a broader concept where different species can be the same kind, Lions, Tigers, & tabby cats, etc. So, if Gorillas & Chimpanzees are in the same kind/baramin, what excludes humans from that group?
Mark

---

No, no Mark, you've got it all wrong. I think it's great Punisher defines "kind" as species. It solves all the problems with trying to argue about how speciation could have occured between the end of the Flood and today. I'm dying to know how Noah got 1.3 million pairs (two of each species) of "kinds" on the ark. I mean, when it wasn't seven of the unclean "kinds".Punisher, care to comment on this dilemma? How DID Noah get all those critters on the ark? Also, please explain how all the potential dinners and diners were segregated for a whole year (this being after the Fall when all those nasty predators stopped eating grass or whatever and started eating the poor innocent herbivores).

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Quetzal:
[b]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Punisher, all you've done here is define species. Kinds is a broader concept where different species can be the same kind, Lions, Tigers, & tabby cats, etc. So, if Gorillas & Chimpanzees are in the same kind/baramin, what excludes humans from that group?
Mark

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Quetzal:

No, no Mark, you've got it all wrong. I think it's great Punisher defines "kind" as species. It solves all the problems with trying to argue about how speciation could have occured between the end of the Flood and today. I'm dying to know how Noah got 1.3 million pairs (two of each species) of "kinds" on the ark. I mean, when it wasn't seven of the unclean "kinds".

​

Punisher, care to comment on this dilemma? How DID Noah get all those critters on the ark? Also, please explain how all the potential dinners and diners were segregated for a whole year (this being after the Fall when all those nasty predators stopped eating grass or whatever and started eating the poor innocent herbivores).

​

---

LOL, I never made the connection, so now it's full circle!Mark------------------
Occam's razor is not for shaving with.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
1)Do you think a chicken and a pig are the same kind? Do you think an ape and a human are the same kind? What criterion would you use?

​

2)Perhaps we should define "kind" as those species which can reproduce together. I would say that a dog 'kind' and a cat 'kind' are two different 'kinds' because they cannot produce offspring together. Would you agree? So, apes and humans are different kinds. As stated earlier, although we see great variety within a 'kind' of species, there is no evidence to suggest that there is an evoulution to a different 'kind'.

---

1)Lets assume for a moment that "kind" is a higher level of taxonomical differentiation than species (otherwise why bother with it)....But as all life extant evolved from those "created kinds" carried on the ark (stepping inside the YEC position) presumably "kind" is a lower order difference than between birds and mammals....So chickens pigs no... humans chimps yes (untill the limits of what defines a "kind" are more clearly defined).....2)Here you are defining "kind" as roughly equivalent to species.....Given the vagaries of this definition and its similarity to species shouldn`t we forget about "kind" and use species instead.....

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
LOL, I never made the connection, so now it's full circle!

​

Mark

---

I defer to Dr. Jonathan Sarfati: "One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic matings, so the 'kind' may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the 'kind' with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Punisher:
I defer to Dr. Jonathan Sarfati: "One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic matings, so the 'kind' may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the 'kind' with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation.

​

For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind."

---

Careful, now you're arguing common descent and descent with modification. Either there were immutable kinds (and you did originally define kind as species - no fair moving the goal posts and now claiming you really meant genera), or there weren't.Let's see if that holds up. You stated, or at least implied, that cats were all the same kind. Now I agree that the Aramaic-speaking people's that came up with the Genesis story didn't have advanced genetic sequencing techniques to really determine differences in "kinds". However, we do. So it makes sense to take a look at one of these kinds and see if it makes sense. Even if the critters are not able to produce hybrids - like the ligers and tigons - if they are all the same kind, they should have approximately the same genetics, n'est-ce pas?One way to genetically determine the relatedness of living organisms is to compare rare mutations or oddball insertions in the genetic code. Good ones for this purpose are retroviral insertions. Basically, a retroviral insertion is an old bit of left-over genetic code from a virus that infected the germline of an ancestral animal. Since it is neutral (assuming the the virus didn't kill the host or something) retroviral DNA will be inherited by descendants of the host. Again, this process is rare and fairly random, so finding retrogenes in identical chromosomal positions of two different species strongly indicates common ancestry. Within the Felidae (cats), the standard phylogenetic tree (based on the usual morphological, biochemical etc features) has small cats diverging later than large cats, with the blackfooted cat Felis nigripes being the first of the small cats to diverge. All small cats (from the jungle cat F chaus, European wildcat F silvestris, sand cat F margarita, African wildcat F lybica, blackfooted cat, to the domestic cat F catus and margay F weidii) share a specific retroviral gene insertion. In contrast, the cat lineages that diverged before the small cat lineage (lion, cheetah, and leopard) and all other carnivores lack this retrogene. Now it is incredibly unlikely that the cheetah or tiger, or some other mammal (dogs, or cows, say), could have this same retrogene in the same chromosomal location. None do. This means all the "little cat kind" are closely related genetically, whereas they are NOT as closely related as a group genetically to the "big cat kind".The implication here is that whereas it might be possible for various "little cat kinds" or "big cat kinds" to mate within their "kind", there is proof from genetics that they HAVE NOT DONE SO - in spite of the fact that many of these species have overlapping ranges, or have ranges that overlap with the other "kind" (ex. Puma concolor and F weidii). Oops, now you have two "kinds" where just a minute ago you had only one.BTW: You should check out a good website on biodiversity or ecology. Even shifting the goal posts to genus and admitting the mechanisms of evolution leaves you with a HUMONGOUS problem of sheer numbers. You still have about 200,000 genera to deal with.Does Safarti have anything to say about how they kept all those predators from eating all your cattle kinds?

Punisher:
My Views on the the bible are kind of scattered right now. I believe that Jesus died for our sins, so basically the new testement I believe to be accurate. I just can't bring myself to believe in the old testement, mainly Genesis, there are too many loopholes and evidence against it. So in a nutshell I'm not sure where I stand with the Bible. And you??

bucane, without getting off topic, I would appeal again to what you believe about Jesus. Jesus believed in the Old Testament. Do you accept His teaching fully or simply the part about dying for your sins? If we reject part of his teaching, we cannot call ourselves followers of Jesus. If we accept it we must believe that the Old Testament contains words from God and that it is fully authoritative.
Besides the amount of use Jesus made of the Old Testament he also gave direct teachings about its authority. This teaching makes it quite clear that Jesus regarded the Old Testament as inspired by God and as the final authority on teaching in all areas. The terms that Jesus used to describe the Bible show the extent to which he found it authoritative.It is written - Jesus uses this phrase 18 times to support his own teaching by reference to his Bible, the Old Testament. In every one of these cases the fact that something was written in the Bible was treated as a guarantee that it was true. Interestingly enough, other people realized that Jesus held the Bible to be fully authoritative and tried to convince him by quoting the scriptures. This occurs eight times in the gospels.Have you never read? - There are ten references in the Bible where Jesus appeals to the people with these words. When he does this it is because he is teaching that the contents of the scripture he quotes are fully authoritative.Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith to them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes?Search the scripture - John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.
This is an appeal to the Pharisees to find an authoritative description of him in the Old Testament. The way he gives it shows that he expects the quotation to complete the argument and thus regards it as authoritative.Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.Mark 14:49 The Scripture must be fulfilled
The fact that something was predicted in the Bible was, for Jesus, enough to guarantee that it would happen. This is the case because the Bible contains the words of God.Luke 24:25 O fools, and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken.
This was spoken by Jesus to two of his doubting disciples after his resurrection. The important point he was making is that it is enough to find something written in the Old Testament to know that it is true. The disciples were forced to accept that Jesus was raised from the dead by a quotation of passages from the Old Testament rather than by Jesus revealing himself to them.The sum of these statements is to show how Jesus taught that the scriptures to which he had access were inspired by God and were fully authoritative. Jesus quotes from all the sections of the Old Testament; no part is omitted, which shows that Jesus accepted all of it as God's word. The way that the quotations are used shows that Jesus did not only accepted them as moral guides. He also accepted the Old Testament descriptions of history and its prediction of events yet to come. He treated the Bible he had as a complete source of true teaching from God.Jesus believed every part of the Scriptures to be inspired and that no part of the Bible can be ignored. If we are to be true followers of Jesus, true Christians, we must accept the teachings of Jesus.Finally, Jesus spoke of Genesis as well.Matthew 19:3—6 "Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’ ‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.Luke 17:26—32: Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all.John 5:46—47: If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say?If you can't bring yourself to believe the Old Testament, then you must believe that Jesus was either misquoted or lying.

Don`t take this the wrong way but why not take this bible study to a new thread......After all this thread is on the subject of mans (putative?) evolution from a common ancestor of the modern apes.....

Punisher:That is my problem right now, I'm not sure if Jesus was misquoted or if he was just not right. Who was actually around to document the account of Genesis? That is my main problem.... Have you ever played the telephone game? What happens for about 10 to 20 generations? The story tends to get messed up. So what am I to believe? Modern Science has a lot to offer in the way of explaination and the Bible which is over 2000 years old isn't doing a very good job of explaining the way the world works. So as a person who is very evidence-based I guess the bible doesn't offer a very good case; scientifically that is.... They are a great bunch of stories about humanity and the great love and hate we are capable of but there are no cold hard facts.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bucane:
Punisher:

​

That is my problem right now, I'm not sure if Jesus was misquoted or if he was just not right. Who was actually around to document the account of Genesis? That is my main problem.... Have you ever played the telephone game? What happens for about 10 to 20 generations? The story tends to get messed up. So what am I to believe? Modern Science has a lot to offer in the way of explaination and the Bible which is over 2000 years old isn't doing a very good job of explaining the way the world works. So as a person who is very evidence-based I guess the bible doesn't offer a very good case; scientifically that is.... They are a great bunch of stories about humanity and the great love and hate we are capable of but there are no cold hard facts.

---

Thats not a problem for YECs..they'll simply tell you that God dictated the Bible to Moses in accurate details...they wont present any evidence however and when you will present evidence of flaws in biblical statements,they'll just re-interpret them to mean something different.

quote:

---

Originally posted by bucane:
Punisher:

​

That is my problem right now, I'm not sure if Jesus was misquoted or if he was just not right. Who was actually around to document the account of Genesis? That is my main problem.... Have you ever played the telephone game? What happens for about 10 to 20 generations? The story tends to get messed up. So what am I to believe? Modern Science has a lot to offer in the way of explaination and the Bible which is over 2000 years old isn't doing a very good job of explaining the way the world works. So as a person who is very evidence-based I guess the bible doesn't offer a very good case; scientifically that is.... They are a great bunch of stories about humanity and the great love and hate we are capable of but there are no cold hard facts.

---

I suggest you check out this site. Even though I haven't read the book, I've read all of what he's got on the site. I've never seen anyone incorporate evolution into the Bible better than what this guy has. Keeping everything that's important about Genesis and ultimately it's link with Jesus intact. Make sure to check it out.Hope this helps
Josh