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

[zeke]

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

What "large number" would that be? You've been mislead my friend. There is no large number. This is just one more fallacy presented under the flag-ship of Darwinian mythology. Mythology that you stepped in without looking?

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes was made a couple of decades ago by the late Dr Colin Patterson, who was at the time the senior paleontologist at the prestigious British Museum of Natural History.

So damning was the quote—about the scarcity of transitional forms (the ‘in-between kinds’ anticipated by evolution) in the fossil record—that one anticreationist took it upon himself to ‘right the creationists’ wrongs’. He wrote what was intended to be a major essay showing how we had ‘misquoted’ Dr Patterson. This accusation still appears occasionally in anticreationist circles, so it is worth revisiting in some detail.

Dr Patterson had written a book for the British Museum simply called Evolution. Creationist Luther Sunderland wrote to Dr Patterson inquiring why he had not shown one single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. Patterson then wrote back with the following amazing confession which was reproduced, in its entirety, in Sunderland’s book Darwin’s Enigma:

‘I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not, honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?’​

He went on to say:

‘Yet Gould [Stephen J. Gould—the now deceased professor of paleontology from Harvard University] and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils. … You say that I should at least “show a photo of the fossil from which each type of organism was derived.†I will lay it on the line—there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument.’​

~ Gary Bates "That quote!—about the missing transitional fossils"
​

What does the phrase, "there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument" mean to you?

 

[lordkalvan]

Back to quote mining, I see, zeke. And you have the temerity to complain when you believe others are misrepresenting you?

 

[Barbarian]

You have a poor memory - you ran off when you were forced to look at the work of real historians.

Actually, I showed you what Augustine actually wrote, not the words of some revisionist historian.

What did Augustine mean when he said Creation took place around 5600 BC?

He meant that a long time before he lived, God instantaneously created the universe, not in six literal days. He also said that everything else developed from that initial creation.

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 other words, taking Genesis at what it actually says. In De Genesi ad Litteram, he says that it is absurd to imagine literal mornings and evenings with no sun to have them.

The Old-Earth figurative view can be traced back at least to Saint Augustine in the 5th Century who pointed out, in De Genesi ad Litteram (On the Literal [Interpretation of] Genesis) that the "days" in Genesis could not be literal days, if only because Genesis itself tells us that the sun was not made until the fourth "day".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Day-age_creationism#cite_note-0

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.

You've never read it have you? This is the work in which he says there were no literal days in Genesis.

Where does this leave you my friend.

Laughing, again. You've been led down the path by someone who knows no better than you.

Remember - you can always associate Augustine with the phrase, "On the necessity of taking Genesis literally". Do you - take it literally as Augustine did?

In Latin, it means "taking it as it is intended." Which was his point. He began by assuming a literal six days, and eventually concluded it was not logically possible.

You've been had again, by people you shouldn't have trusted.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
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.

There's no point in denying it. I showed you the data.

Barbarian observes:
Anatomy is pretty good evidence. Compelling, even.

Only for amateurs and those easily persuaded. Genetic similarity points to a Creator.

A Creator Who used evolution. And as you know, we can test that with organisms of known descent.

Remember, even Stephen Gould admitted that homology supports common design as well as it does common ancestry.

You never came up with that one. It appears to be another faked quote of yours.

 

[Barbarian]

What "large number" would that be?

Dino/birds. Fish/tetrapods. Reptile/mammals. Ungulates/whales. Lizards/snakes. Anapsids/turtles. Salamanders/frogs. That kind of thing. An endless supply of them.

One of the most famous and widely circulated quotes...

Since you've been repeatedly caught peddling faked quotes, (Apparently in all innocence; they are fakes that are readily found on the net), you'll have to use evidence, if you want anyone to listen.

 

[Sparkey]

Back to quote mining, I see, zeke. And you have the temerity to complain when you believe others are misrepresenting you?

lol, I saw that!

 

[Asyncritus]

Dino/birds. Fish/tetrapods. Reptile/mammals. Ungulates/whales. Lizards/snakes. Anapsids/turtles. Salamanders/frogs. That kind of thing. An endless supply of them.

Ho ho ho!!!!

You never learn, do you B?

 

[Asyncritus]

Not to a Christian.

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

So do I understand that you are 98% chimp? Or that a chimp is 98% human? If so, why are they in separate families, and not merely species?

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.

Huxley did not demolish Wilberforce. Frank James, historian at the Royal Institution in London, said 'Had Wilberforce not been so unpopular in Oxford, he would have carried the day, and not Huxley'. Apparently most of the reports of the encounter came from Huxley's friends. So you're wrong, again.

I've already quoted a paper sayng that every bone of the chimp is easily distinguishable ferom a chimp. So you're wrong again. Huxley clearly didn;t know what he was talking about, and neither do you.

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.

You were asked how a 4-bind could evolve into a 5-bind. I'm waiting for some answer.

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?

That is the most foolish argument you have yet advanced.

Elephants outdo human memories, according to legend.
Because inferior humans in ability do exist, does that mean they are chimps in disguise?
And you really have to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to even mention the idea that chimps show mathematical ability. After how many years of torture in the experimentalists hands?

Please, let's have some sense Barbarian. You are giving evolutionary science a bad name - which I may say, it richly deserves.

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

You have no evidence to show that they did. Remember, its your assertion, not mine. So prove it already.

 

[lordkalvan]

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

 

[Barbarian]

We are like chimpanzees, now.

Yep. That's been known for a long time. Huxley routed Owen on the subject, using Owen's own data to drive the point home.

Barbarian observes:
Nothing is closer to us in anatomy, brain, genetics, etc.

So do I understand that you are 98% chimp? Or that a chimp is 98% human?

You're confusing creationist/racist ideas with science. It doesn't work that way.

If so, why are they in separate families, and not merely species?

That was done by a creationist, Carolus Linnaeus, who later admitted:

I demand of you, and of the whole world, that you show me a generic character...by which to distinguish between Man and Ape. I myself most assuredly know of none. I wish somebody would indicate one to me. But, if I had called man an ape, or vice versa, I would have fallen under the ban of the ecclesiastics. It may be that as a naturalist I ought to have done so


However, you've been misled again on the taxonomy. Humans and chimps are the same family. The same tribe, in fact, with Gorillas in the outgroup of the family.

Barbarian observes:
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.

Huxley did not demolish Wilberforce.

Wrong debate. Huxley routed Wilberforce two days later.

I've already quoted a paper sayng that every bone of the chimp is easily distinguishable ferom a chimp.

Sounds interesting. What bone does a chimp have that humans don't?

So you're wrong again.

Nope. In fact, Huxley demonstrated the fact.

Barbarian observes:
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.

You were asked how a 4-bind could evolve into a 5-bind.

Some humans have it. If it can happen within a speces, it seems pretty foolish to deny it can happen within a family, doesn't it?

I'm waiting for some answer.

You probably just forgot it, so I reminded you.

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?

That is the most foolish argument you have yet advanced.

I notice it leaves you without an effective reply.

Elephants outdo human memories, according to legend.

Legends work for creationism. Science requires facts.

And you really have to be scraping the bottom of the barrel to even mention the idea that chimps show mathematical ability.

It's a surprising fact that they are quite capable of doing simple math problems.

After how many years of torture in the experimentalists hands?

Somewhat less than is required of human schoolchildren. But apes mature a bit faster after all.

Please, let's have some sense Barbarian. You are giving evolutionary science a bad name - which I may say, it richly deserves.

Sounds like someone's out of ammunition, again.

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

(Async declines to do so)

The usual... you claim it couldn't have happened. Show us.

 

[Seeker]

To be honest, scientific positions change ALL the time - this is something we must all accept, and this is the reason I prefer to avoid the scientific side of the evolution debate. Because I must admit - a lot of the evidence just depends on what perspective you look at it. Even the solid, anti-evolutionary evidence can be answered with "well, science doesn't have the answer but we're working on it". I'm sorry to have to admit that, but it's true.

HOWEVER, scripture is the same and we believe our respective scriptures to be true now and forever. Therefore, what does the Bible say on this matter? That way, we can put science to the test of the Bible, and not the Bible to the test of science - I find the latter approach degrading to the words of God.

If there is scope to take something metaphorically - fine, let us examine the text. But some things are clear and we must make up our minds as to which side of the clash we will side with. But do not discuss text in a cursory fashion without even quoting it - we need to see what CAN fit with the text and what falls outside of it.

 

[cupid dave]

1) - 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!

2) I believe that Almighty God created Adam without a father or mother (which means NO EVOLUTION).

Hello seeker.

1) The christians on one side do not read Genesis as it literally states the 12 acts of God mentioned in Gen 1.
What the atheists say about evolution hardly differs with what Genesis says when one re-visits the actual text.

Plant life is claimed to be an Act-of-God which develops into the whole Plant Kingdom.
That is pretty much the same idea as science defines Abiogenesis and supports that Plant life lead the Anilmal Kingdon by @ 200 million years, being necessary to the production of Oxygen.



Gen. 1:11 And(Father Nature, Reality), “God,†said, Let the earth bring forth"grass"i.e.; ("deshe," in the Hebrew meaning "the first sprouts of the Earth,and, then)," the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruitafter his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.




2) Genesis supports evolution of man born of a chemistry in the atoms fo the planet earth.
"Adam" is clearly described as a new kind of being, not an Ape.



Gen5:2:

2Maleand female created he THEM; and blessed THEM, and calledTHEIR name "Adam," (a species?) in the day when THEYwere created.


Adam is a man, one created in the womb of an Ape, but in a miracle birth, wherein some Act-of-God caused a mutation in the normal Ape's 24 chromosomes.

A chemistry mutated and fusde two chromosomes together, producing this first man with only 23 chromosome.

Then, we read that from this start, 22 other man/apes evolved until modern man flooded the earth, killing all the other kinds:

 

[cupid dave]

To be honest, scientific positions change ALL the time - this is something we must all accept, and this is the reason I prefer to avoid the scientific side of the evolution debate. Because I must admit - a lot of the evidence just depends on what perspective you look at it. Even the solid, anti-evolutionary evidence can be answered with "well, science doesn't have the answer but we're working on it". I'm sorry to have to admit that, but it's true.

HOWEVER, scripture is the same and we believe our respective scriptures to be true now and forever. Therefore, what does the Bible say on this matter? That way, we can put science to the test of the Bible, and not the Bible to the test of science - I find the latter approach degrading to the words of God.

If there is scope to take something metaphorically - fine, let us examine the text. But some things are clear and we must make up our minds as to which side of the clash we will side with. But do not discuss text in a cursory fashion without even quoting it - we need to see what CAN fit with the text and what falls outside of it.

I compliment your intellectual honesty and general straight forwardness.
It is clear that you are a student of your own scripture (which is founded upon the Bible), and a person who practices the tenets as you understand them.

I respond to your invitation to compare the Science to what scripture says, and judge the science in that way, rather than the converse.

Gen 1:1 states that the Universe was not always there, but had a sudden beginning which was an Actof the First Cause, be it whatever science may in the future deem.

Neverthe less, the Big Bang discovered just 50-75 years ago has caught up with the Bible:

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif](Click on picture to go to next page)[/FONT]​

[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]Gen. 1:1 In the beginning, (the Formative/Cosmology Era), God, (the Uncaused First Cause, or the Dark Energy which pre-existed the material Universe, perhaps), created... (all that which has followed the Big Bang from the singularity of Planck Time which consisted of Seven Stages: [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
1) The Inflation Era

2) The Quark Era

3) Hadron Era

4) Lepton Era

5) Nucleosynthesis Era

6) Opaque Era

7) Matter Era,... in an enormous Einsteinian energy transformation, E = mC^2), the (matter composing the) heaven (beyond the Solar System) and the (accretion disk which congealed into the planet) earth.





[/FONT]



[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]The Formative - Hadean Era/ First Day: From The Big Bang to 4.5 Years Ago [/FONT]
[FONT=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif]
The Early Universe originated with the expansion of an unbelievably hot and dense "something;" hotter than the tens of millions of Kelvins in the cores of most stars, denser than the trillions of grams per cubic centimeter in the nucleus of any atom.
Precisely what that state was, we cannot say for sure. And why it "exploded," we really don't know.
At best, science contends that in the beginning a singularity released an outward burst of pure, radiant energy.
Why the Universe suddenly began expanding more than 10 billion years ago is a most intractable query, so formidable that scientists are currently unaware even how to formulate a meaningful question about it.


[/FONT]