[_ Old Earth _] Difference Between Evolution of Humans / Evolution of non-Humans?

[Seeker]

Hi all, and peace be with you! This is not really a scientific question on evolution - it is more of a Biblical one. Scientists will for a long time be throwing around ideas about how life came to exists as it is - at the moment their leading theory (aside from creationism) is that of evolution. That's all atheists have really, so you can see why they want to hold onto it!

Now I, personally, differentiate between the evolution of humans and non-humans. As far as humans are concerned, I believe that Almighty God - exalted and blessed be He - created Adam without a father or mother (which means NO EVOLUTION). [EDIT: the previous sentence is my opinion and not the words of my scripture] At least, this is what is seems to me from the Qur'an - we have a somewhat similar narrative to the Bible in that Adam and Eve dwelt in Paradise and then were caused to leave where they were and lived on Earth, and on the whole Muslims are quite serious in taking this account literally.

However, when it comes to non-humans (plants, animals, bacteria, etc.) I really don't care to have a strong opinion, because my religious scripture does not say the same thing about them as it does about Adam. I would be interested in a Christian or Biblical perspective on this?

Religion should not have to "change" according to the current scientific trends - truth is always truth! So, while I - personally - do not believe in the evolution of plants/animals/etc., I will not put that belief onto my religion. Except with the creation of man!

 

[Barbarian]

The Bible does not say that Adam had no father or mother. It merely has a poetic description of God bringing him forth from the Earth, as was the case with all living things.

There is no conflict.

 

[Asyncritus]

There is enormous conflict.

We did not evolve from some alleged 'common ancestor' probably like a chimpanzee.

The differences are too vast, no matter how much special pleading the evolutionists do.

The human metatarsal ligament binds all 5 tarsal bones together in the foot. The primate metatarsal binds only 4, leaving the great toe free for grasping branches etc.

And then, of course there is the human capacity for intelligent thought. Could not have evolved, and the inference to the best explanation is that the human psyche was created, to have dominion over the brute creation.

Not to mention the human ability to recognise God.

 

[Seeker]

There is enormous conflict.

We did not evolve from some alleged 'common ancestor' probably like a chimpanzee.

The differences are too vast, no matter how much special pleading the evolutionists do.

The human metatarsal ligament binds all 5 tarsal bones together in the foot. The primate metatarsal binds only 4, leaving the great toe free for grasping branches etc.

And then, of course there is the human capacity for intelligent thought. Could not have evolved, and the inference to the best explanation is that the human psyche was created, to have dominion over the brute creation.

Not to mention the human ability to recognise God.

Many of these are scientific arguments - that's fine, one can use it to come to their own conclusions. But I'm curious to see what the Bible says, so that if we take it from the most literal viewpoint, would it rule out evolution completely or rule out human evolution only or not rule it out at all?

 

[Sparkey]

Taking everything from the most literal viewpoint possible strikes me as a reasonable way to look at Scripture and what God has said. From that view we can know that God created the heavens and the earth and that He is ultimately responsible for the creation of all things within them. Many Christians would also agree with you that the creation of Adam (the first man) was a separate and very special act of God. The Bible states that God said, "let the earth bring forth" various creatures, "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so." - (Gen 1:24 KJV)

But when the Bible speaks about the creation of man we see this act as different from the rest. The earth did not bring forth in this case, no. God Himself did. "So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them." - (Gen 1:27 KJV)

This is the verse that Jesus quoted when speaking about divorce, "And Jesus answered and said unto them, For the hardness of your heart he wrote you this precept. But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female. For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and cleave to his wife; And they twain shall be one flesh: so then they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder." - (Mar 10:5-9 KJV)

God has shown us the end from the beginning. By this we know that He is God.

 

[Asyncritus]

Many of these are scientific arguments - that's fine, one can use it to come to their own conclusions. But I'm curious to see what the Bible says, so that if we take it from the most literal viewpoint, would it rule out evolution completely or rule out human evolution only or not rule it out at all?

I personally rule out evolution (macro-) completely on scientific grounds. It is a hopeless mish mash of at best feeble reasoning from very little fact.

The fossils don't support it, the genetic arguments (ie mutations, genetic drift etc) are hopelessly inadequate, natural selection is nearly useless, and worst of all, my favourite evidence body, the existence of instinct, completely ruins the theory. From this last there is no comeback, and the theory should be abandoned.

For many reasons supporting the last statement, visit my blog and be pleasantly surprised:

http://belligerentdesign-asyncritus.blogspot.co.uk/2009/10/ervs-function-discovered.html

Feel free to look around carefully: it's quite wide ranging.

 

[zeke]

The Bible does not say that Adam had no father or mother. It merely has a poetic description of God bringing him forth from the Earth, as was the case with all living things.

There is no conflict.

Did Adam have a father 'after the flesh' and if he did was his father 'a living soul' or a 'beast of the field'?

 

[Barbarian]

There is enormous conflict.

Not to a Christian.

We did not evolve from some alleged 'common ancestor' probably like a chimpanzee.

We are like chimpanzees, now. Nothing is closer to us in anatomy, brain, genetics, etc.

The differences are too vast, no matter how much special pleading the evolutionists do.

Huxley demolished Owens in a debate on that, challenging Owens to name even one anatomical characteristic in chimps not found in humans, or vice versa.

The human metatarsal ligament binds all 5 tarsal bones together in the foot. The primate metatarsal binds only 4, leaving the great toe free for grasping branches etc.

But the Australopithecines had feet so like those of modern humans that it takes an expert to tell the difference. One of the differences, is that the hallux is bound by the metatarsal ligament, but less fully than in modern humans.

And then, of course there is the human capacity for intelligent thought.

Evidence shows apes capable of language, reasoning, inferring mental states in others, and even mathematical concepts. In some mental powers, such as memory, they outdo most humans. And there are humans whose mental powers are generally inferior to those of most chimps. Do they cease to be human thereby?

Could not have evolved

Show us that the increase in mental abilities we see between apes and humans could not have evolved.

 

[Barbarian]

I personally rule out evolution (macro-) completely on scientific grounds. It is a hopeless mish mash of at best feeble reasoning from very little fact.

I know you want us to believe that, but you've been rather unsuccessful at presenting evidence.

The fossils don't support it

The large number of transitionals, many of which I showed you, clearly indicate common ancestry.

the genetic arguments (ie mutations, genetic drift etc) are hopelessly inadequate,

As you learned, the genetic evidence, later discovered, showed Darwin was right. And we know it's right, because we can show it works with organisms of known descent.

natural selection is nearly useless

We have observed natural selection at work in the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. That's compelling evidence.

and worst of all, my favourite evidence body, the existence of instinct, completely ruins the theory.

Show us an instinct that could not have evolved.

From this last there is no comeback, and the theory should be abandoned.

You'll have to come up with some reasons that aren't so easy to overturn, then.

For many reasons supporting the last statement, visit my blog and be pleasantly surprised:

Ah, you're selling stuff. It's a bit pricey as creationist tracts go. You might find your sales increasing, if they were more in line with the other stuff offered on the net.

 

[zeke]

Huxley demolished Owens in a debate on that, challenging Owens to name even one anatomical characteristic in chimps not found in humans, or vice versa.

I that debate Huxley came out looking like a monkey when Wilberforce asked him if his monkey ancestors came from his grandfathers or his grandmothers side. Genetic similarity supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

But the Australopithecines had feet so like those of modern humans that it takes an expert to tell the difference.

Where's your proof for that one - like from science? Australopithecines...dead-end ape line that has nothing to do with your ancestral line.

 

[zeke]

The large number of transitionals, many of which I showed you, clearly indicate common ancestry.

I know you want us to believe that, but you've been rather unsuccessful at presenting evidence - yes?

As you learned, the genetic evidence, later discovered, showed Darwin was right. And we know it's right, because we can show it works with organisms of known descent.

Aren't you just saying it is true because Darwinians say it is true? Circularity at its best.

We have observed natural selection at work in the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. That's compelling evidence.

You just forgot to present the "compelling evidence" - right?

 

[Barbarian]

I that debate Huxley came out looking like a monkey when Wilberforce asked him if his monkey ancestors came from his grandfathers or his grandmothers side.

Wrong debate. BTW, after Wilberforce asked the question, Huxley whispered to his neighbor, "The Lord has delivered him into my hands." He then asserted that he would rather have an ape for an ancestor than a man possessed of great gifts of intelligence, who would stoop to using ridicule in a scientific debate. Which pretty much ended the debate.

Genetic similarity supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

We can test that, with organisms of known descent. Turns out, you're wrong. Alligators are genetically more like chickens than like lizards. Because alligators and chickens are archosaurs, and archosaurs are only distantly related to lizards. Even though the "design" of alligators is more like that of a lizard. Surprise.

Barbarian chuckles:
But the Australopithecines had feet so like those of modern humans that it takes an expert to tell the difference.

Where's your proof for that one - like from science?

Fossil foot bones from A. afarensis add detail to what we've learned from the Laetoli footprint trails. For example, Carol Ward, Bill Kimbel and Don Johanson [1] described one of the bones of the midfoot from Hadar, Ethiopia, that represents A. afarensis. This bone, the fourth metatarsal, is the one that connects the fourth toe to the bones of the ankle. In humans, these ankle bones are higher, and transfer the body's weight downward into the arching midfoot. So the fourth metatarsal has to be slightly twisted as it arches down toward the lateral (outside) side of the foot. A chimpanzee's foot is much flatter, so the bone doesn't twist. Ward and colleagues found that the A. afarensis bone was twisted in a humanlike way.

Hadar is the place where one of the most famous skeletons in the world was found: the "Lucy" skeleton, discovered by Don Johanson in 1974. Lucy presents evidence across much of her skeleton for a humanlike manner of walking. Jeremy DeSilva and Zach Throckmorton [2] looked at the tibia (shin bone) of this skeleton, along with other fossil tibiae of A. afarensis, to try to determine whether their ankle bones were structured to create a rearfoot arch like humans. What they found was interesting: Most A. afarensis tibiae met the ankle in a humanlike orientation, but they varied. Lucy's ankle in particular looked like her feet were relatively flatter. Just as human feet vary in their shape, this early species of hominins varied as well.
http://johnhawks.net/explainer/early-hominins/feet-australopithecus-afarensis

Australopithecines...dead-end ape line that has nothing to do with your ancestral line.

As you learned, they are very close to the line that led to anatomically modern humans.

The feet are just one of the transitional features that show it to be so.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
The large number of transitionals, many of which I showed you, clearly indicate common ancestry.

I know you want us to believe that, but you've been rather unsuccessful at presenting evidence - yes?

You may have missed it. Each time I presented it, you abandoned the thread.

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, the genetic evidence, later discovered, showed Darwin was right. And we know it's right, because we can show it works with organisms of known descent.

Aren't you just saying it is true because Darwinians say it is true?

Nope. For example, we can show the relationships of populations of humans with the same method, and we can check it with historical data. So we know it works.

Circularity at its best.

Perhaps you don't know what "circularity" means.

Barbarian observes:
We have observed natural selection at work in the evolution of a new, irreducibly complex enzyme system. That's compelling evidence.

You just forgot to present the "compelling evidence" - right?

You've already seen it. Or maybe you bailed out of that one before you had a chance to see it.

Hall's E. coli were observed to evolve a new enzyme system over a period of time, by natural selection and random mutations. And after that, a regulator evolved. So the system became irreducibly complex. In order for it to work, the substrate, regulator, and enzyme all had to be present. If one element was missing, it wouldn't work.

 

[zeke]

Wrong debate. BTW, after Wilberforce asked the question, Huxley whispered to his neighbor, "The Lord has delivered him into my hands." He then asserted that he would rather have an ape for an ancestor than a man possessed of great gifts of intelligence, who would stoop to using ridicule in a scientific debate.

It was the right debate and Wilberforce knew the difference between science and Darwinian mythology - leaving Huxley the fool.

As you learned, they are very close to the line that led to anatomically modern humans.

What we know is they both have the same Designer.

Where have you been, Barb - you appeared to have run off when you found out Augustine did not support your fantasy view of Genesis. Are you back?

 

[zeke]

Perhaps you don't know what "circularity" means.

Your posts tell the circular story. What else do you have?

 

[zeke]

Fossil foot bones from A. afarensis add detail to what we've learned from the Laetoli footprint trails. For example, Carol Ward, Bill Kimbel and Don Johanson [1] described one of the bones of the midfoot from Hadar, Ethiopia, that represents A. afarensis. This bone, the fourth metatarsal, is the one that connects the fourth toe to the bones of the ankle. In humans, these ankle bones are higher, and transfer the body's weight downward into the arching midfoot. So the fourth metatarsal has to be slightly twisted as it arches down toward the lateral (outside) side of the foot. A chimpanzee's foot is much flatter, so the bone doesn't twist. Ward and colleagues found that the A. afarensis bone was twisted in a humanlike way.

Hadar is the place where one of the most famous skeletons in the world was found: the "Lucy" skeleton, discovered by Don Johanson in 1974. Lucy presents evidence across much of her skeleton for a humanlike manner of walking. Jeremy DeSilva and Zach Throckmorton [2] looked at the tibia (shin bone) of this skeleton, along with other fossil tibiae of A. afarensis, to try to determine whether their ankle bones were structured to create a rearfoot arch like humans. What they found was interesting: Most A. afarensis tibiae met the ankle in a humanlike orientation, but they varied. Lucy's ankle in particular looked like her feet were relatively flatter. Just as human feet vary in their shape, this early species of hominins varied as well.

Lol - "twisted in a humanlike way" hardly supports your grandiose notion that "Australopithecines had feet so like those of modern humans that it takes an expert to tell the difference" - does it? Typical Darwinian fluff. Do you have real science to support your naturalistic creation myth.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian chuckles:
Wrong debate. BTW, after Wilberforce asked the question, Huxley whispered to his neighbor, "The Lord has delivered him into my hands." He then asserted that he would rather have an ape for an ancestor than a man possessed of great gifts of intelligence, who would stoop to using ridicule in a scientific debate.

It was the right debate

No, you've been misled about that. Huxley debated Owen at a different time, on a much more specific point, that of the relationship between humans and apes.

The debate with Wilberforce took place at the Oxford University Museum June 30, 1860. The debate with Owen took place on June 28th of the same year.

And Wilberforce knew the difference between science and Darwinian mythology - leaving Huxley the fool.

The general view was and still is that Huxley got much the better of the exchange though Wilberforce himself thought he had done quite well. In the absence of a verbatim report differing perceptions are difficult to judge fairly; Huxley wrote a detailed account for Darwin, a letter which does not survive; however, a letter to his friend Frederick Daniel Dyster does survive with an account just three months after the event.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Henry_Huxley

Barbarian observes:
As you learned, they are very close to the line that led to anatomically modern humans.

What we know is they both have the same Designer.

As you see, the bird/alligator facts refute that notion.

Where have you been, Barb

I was involved in something else for a bit. It's good to get out and actually observe nature now and then.

you appeared to have run off when you found out Augustine did not support your fantasy view of Genesis.

Last post I remember, you didn't reply when you learned that Augustine recognized that the days of creation were not literal ones.
http://www.etsjets.org/files/JETS-PDFs/32/32-4/32-4-pp457-464_JETS.pdf

Are you back?

Yep. Spring tends to pull me away from the study. Always has. And Lord Kalvan and Sparrowhawke have been handling you quite capably in my absence.

 

[Barbarian]

Lol - "twisted in a humanlike way" hardly supports your grandiose notion that "Australopithecines had feet so like those of modern humans that it takes an expert to tell the difference" - does it?

Yep. You couldn't do it. You clearly don't understand the reason why this matters.

Typical Darwinian fluff.

Anatomical evidence shows that their feet were indeed so humanlike that even someone familiar with human anatomy would have trouble separating them.

Do you have real science to support your naturalistic creation myth.

Anatomy is pretty good evidence. Compelling, even.

 

[zeke]

Last post I remember, you didn't reply when you learned that Augustine recognized that the days of creation were not literal ones.

You have a poor memory - you ran off when you were forced to look at the work of real historians. What did Augustine mean when he said Creation took place around 5600 BC? Don't run...

Augustine wrote in De Civitate Dei that his view of the chronology of the world and the Bible led him to believe that Creation took place around 5600 BC...

As Augustine became older, he gave greater emphasis to the underlying historicity and necessity of a literal interpretation of Scripture. His most important work is De Genesi ad litteram. The title says it: On the necessity of taking Genesis literally. In this later work of his, Augustine says farewell to his earlier allegorical and typological exegesis of parts of Genesis and calls his readers back to the Bible. He even rejected allegory when he deals with the historicity and geographic locality of Paradise on earth. ~ Dr. Benno Zuiddam​

Where does this leave you my friend. Back to the drawing board--yes? Remember - you can always associate Augustine with the phrase, "On the necessity of taking Genesis literally". Do you - take it literally as Augustine did? ;)

 

[zeke]

Anatomical evidence shows that their feet were indeed so humanlike that even someone familiar with human anatomy would have trouble separating them.

Only in the mind of a 'true believer' in Darwinian mythology but we are discussing science.

Anatomy is pretty good evidence. Compelling, even.

Only for amateurs and those easily persuaded. Genetic similarity points to a Creator. Remember, even Stephen Gould admitted that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry. But you already knew that - right?