I mentioned the physical things which evolution cannot account for.
In humans, specifically, in a paper published by King and Wilson in
Science, 1975, and studiously ignored thereafter, the comment was made that since humans and chimpanzees share the greater part of our genomes, then we must
be apes.
I suppose that also means that apes must be humans too! Hmmm.
No, not
all apes are humans, only the human apes, in the same way that not all apes are chimpanzees, not all apes are orangutans, but all of these
and their extinct ancestors form a family of organisms known as the Hominidae.
Unfortunately for their idea, the facts got the better of them, because they then went on to say:
“…Although humans and chimpanzees are rather similar in the structure of thorax and arms, they differ substantially not only in brain size, but also in the anatomy of the pelvis, foot and jaws, as well as in relative lengths of limbs and digits.
Humans and chimpanzees also differ significantly in many other anatomical respects, to the extent that nearly every bone in the body of a chimpanzee is readily distinguishable in shape and size from its human counterpart.
Associated with these anatomical differences there are, of course major differences in posture, methods of procuring food, and means of communication.
Because of these major differences in anatomy and way of life, biologists place the two species not just in separate genera but in separate families.â€
Given all that, it is quite impossible for the chimp/orang/whatever to become human. I mentioned previously the fact that the metatarsal ligament in human feet, binds all 5 toes together, while in chimps etc, the same ligament binds 4 toes, leaving the 5th or great toe free to grasp branches etc easily.
There is no possible intermediate between the 4-bind and the 5-bind and so it is perfectly clear that humans did not evolve from chimpanzees, but are a separate and distinct creation.
Which is only to be expected.
You're right, it
is only to be expected considering that we did
not evolve from chimpanzees. I'm really not sure who told you that, but it simply isn't correct in any sense. Humans and chimpanzees share a
common ancestor that is estimated to have existed is over 7 million years ago, and could be as long ago as 25 million years. When we describe chimpanzees as being our closest relative, I think you'll find in every substantiated scientific article it will be highlighted that the chimp is only our closest
living relative. Our other relatives are since extinct, but there exists a large collection of fossils pertaining to these relatives. Besides that, of course the bones can be distinguished. We're not chimpanzees. One could distinguish the bones of a wolf and a domestic dog? I don't see what this proves.
In 2007, Eugene Koonin said what the palaeontologists have been saying for decades:
Major transitions in biological evolution show the same pattern of sudden emergence of diverse forms at a new level of complexity.
Further: facts that fall outside the margins of Darwin’s theory include “the origin of complex RNA molecules and protein folds; major groups of viruses; archaea and bacteria, and the principal lineages within each of these prokaryotic domains; eukaryotic supergroups; and animal phyla.â€
Which is to say, almost everything.
Given that fact, repeated by palaeontologist after dozen palaeontologists, the evolutionist is forced to admit that the human brain and mind also emerged suddenly. No intermediates, no gradual improvements, Simply, BANG! And there we were.
Darwin was the first man to postulate the theory of evolution, when it was suggested it was long before man knew anything about genetics, DNA, or RNA. The hypothesis (at the time), was in its infancy. Since then, we have garnered knew information, which hasn't discredited to the theory (no longer an hypothesis), but has in fact elaborated and added to it. "Simply, BANG" is a terrible description of events. The current knowledge of complex RNA molecules (which act as an intermediate position between DNA and the translation of the genetic code), has indicated that instead of evolution occurring at a constant rate through natural selection, it happens quicker than originally thought when the environment changes, but much slower in a stable environment. At no point is it
ever postulated that something simply "poofed" into existence, only God exists within the "poof there it is!" hypothesis.
And as far as addressing your queries regarding the evolution of the mind, I would say that you need only look at the animal kingdom. We have a developed mind, chimps less so, dogs even less so, mice even further down the spectrum, birds even further, insects basically none. We can see the mind existing in various different stages simply by looking out into the world. And by no means is having a "mind" the pinnacle of evolution, as you seem to imply. It's simply what happened to give our ancestors a slightly better chance at surviving. For other creatures in different environments and with different tools at their disposal, having a mind would be detrimental as opposed to helpful.
In 1936, Alan Turing produced a theoretical model of a machine which could imitate the human mind. That machine, brilliant as it was, could do nothing without a program. It’s descendants, modern computers, magnificent as they are, can also do nothing without a program.
Evolution describes beautifully how such a program could be written biologically.
Saying that the human mind is like a computer is quite simply, stupid.
I agree. We have to input the parameters for which a computer to respond, where as the human mind is susceptible to the environment in which it evolved.
Computers are artefacts of the human mind, requiring as an initial condition, a creator. The existence of the mind of the creator must also be explained. Well?
It's explained very well within evolution. I think you do have some misconceptions about evolution however. Firstly evolution has nothing to do with how life started. It literally says
nothing about that. There are current hypothesis within that field, namely abiogenesis, but that's for another time perhaps. Once life has begun, however, evolution explains the variation of life that now exists on earth, and by extension, the human mind.
Newton faced the same problem when he produced his system of the world in the Principia. He could accurately describe the planetary orbits, but not the initial conditions which created those orbits.
This, of course, was no problem to him, because he correctly said that this most beautiful system could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of the Creator of all things.
Our minds are reflections of the mind of God, who created us. Pale shadows, of course, but reflections nonetheless.
Isaac Newton lived 300 years ago. We
can now describe the initial conditions which created these orbits. Science is an ever changing, ever evolving process (pardon the pun). Ideas are postulated and become a hypothesis. A prediction is made with the hypothesis to see if it holds up to scrutiny. If it does consistently, then we have a theory. But just because it's now a theory, doesn't mean we stop testing. With all the new information we get (like the DNA and RNA we discusse earlier), we
continue to test and scrutinise. All hypotheses and theories are looked at from a position of doubt, and if ever, even
once, they don't hold up to the scrutiny, they are discarded.
Once again, I must stress that evolution has
nothing to do with the origin of life, and nothing to do with the origin of the universe. Saying however that it only makes sense that something so beautiful and complex
has to come from a creator poses the question of where the creator came from? Isn't He even
more complex? So by your logic that means he
must have a creator?
The palaeontologists will dig till doomsday, in vain, in the search for human origins, producing one idiotic theory after the next. Our origins are not in the mud and dirt, buried among the graves of countless chimpanzees, gorillas, orang-utans and the like.
Dig until doomsday? The fossils exist! We have them.. Right now! They were also exactly where evolution predicted they would be. How could you say that nothing has been found?
Everything that evolution predicted we would find, has been found, exactly as evolution has described. If you took the time to look, you would find that there exists and overwhelming amount of evidence pertaining to evolution, and I'm not just talking about fossils.
It is only by blatant eye-shutting that anthropologists can make the foolish claims that they do make. Anyone making the claim that we are somehow descended from the gorillas etc. deserves to have descended from them: their intellect is on a par with said gorillas.
The rest of us, with some degree of common sense, can say to the said anthropologists Just look around you, pal. There’s the evidence that we aren’t descended from them.
You’ve missed it, because your head is stuck so firmly down the hole you dug for yourself.
Trouble is, with your head down there, you’ve exposed a very vulnerable part of your anatomy. It deserves to be kicked.
I hate to be that guy, but you're the one being close-minded here. Just look for it, the evidence is available for anyone to see. Really, don't take my word for it, and don't just read creationist literature. Even if the creationist literature were true, I assure that it presents evolution from a position of ignorance. I understand you don't want to believe in it, but you should at least understand what it is you're arguing against.
