Posted on 08/16/2012 9:41:05 AM PDT by CHRISTIAN DIARIST
Paging Nicholas Wade. He’s the New York Times science writer who worships at the altar of Darwinism.
Two years ago, he reported that biologists, led by Svante Paabo of Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, had determined that Neanderthals mated with modern humans.
That “scientific” finding provided a convenient explanation for what happened to humanity’s supposed ancestor: We interbred with them until they disappeared.
Now comes a new study, reported this week in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, that the finding reported by Wade, were wrong. There was no mating, no “hybridization,” between Neanderthals and Homo Sapiens (us).
The study’s authors, Andrea Manica and Anders Eriksson, scientists with the Evolutionary Ecology Group at Britain’s Cambridge University, say that modern humans have no Neanderthal DNA.
Whatever DNA modern humans and Neanderthals share in common came not from interbreeding, the scientists concluded, but from a common, unknown ancestor (a chimpanzee, maybe?).
This is a stunning scientific turnabout in the prevailing wisdom about human evolution. Yet Wade has yet to weigh in on what it all means.
Are we never to know what happened to Neanderthals? Shall we never discover the “missing link,” proving that man evolved from monkey?
Could the proponents of “intelligent design” actually be right, that man did not begin existence as a simple, one-cell organism in this planet’s primordial ooze, but as the fully-formed creation of Almighty God?
Of course, Wade is not going to concede anything to those of us who dare to question his god, Darwin.
He sneers, “To many biologists and others (meaning enlightened journalists like Wade himself), it is a source of amazement and embarrassment that many Americans repudiate Darwin’s theory and that some even espouse counter-theories like creationism or intelligent design.”
“How,” he asks, “can such willful ignorance thrive in today’s seas of knowledge?”
Wade’s attack on evolution doubters, like yours truly, is nothing new for the New York Times.
All the way back in 1906, the “Gray Lady,” as the Times is affectionately known in some quarters, published an editorial supporting a decision by the Bronx Zoo to put an African pygmy named Ota Benga on display in its Monkey House – a putative live exhibit of human evolution..
“We do not quite understand all the emotion which others are expressing in the matter,” the Times harrumphed. “It is absurd to make moan over the imagined humiliation and degradation Benga is suffering. The pygmies … are very low in the human scale.”
The Times was wrong on human evolution then. And its pro-Darwin reporting is no less wrong today.
I have no problem with the idea that God created the universe and evolution is part of that plan. What I have a problem with is shoddy or just plain bad science that tries to use evolution to somehow prove there is no God.
Couldn’t agree more.
just plain bad science that tries to use evolution to somehow prove there is no God.
That is the definition of a "fools errand."
5.56mm
Which seems to happen a few times per year these days.
Yep. The whole point of science is that new evidence introduces refined understandings. That is a strength, not a weakness.
“when you wake up in the morning look at yourself in the mirror and you must make a decision.... The human being looking back at you came from a single cell entity from some mud hole or was created in the image of God with muscles, bone, ligaments, eyes, ears, blood, a brain that has almost unlimited capacity to invent, innovate, that loves to the point that will pay the ultimate sacrifice
Or maybe is just the result of a common maker and designer?
The problem with ‘evolution’ is that it was a 19th century literary idea that was able to impregnate itself into the intuitions of many materialists and anti-creationists.
After The Origin of Species was published, there was a massive torrent of darwinic writing that was able to sweep away the fragile edifices of the worldviews of many technically minded people, but at its core, there was no proof to the fable of evolution, only a slippery slope of faulty logic.
The narrative of evolution is larger and stronger than the discredited fiction of anthropogenic global warming, but its logical substructure is no less flawed.
Maybe they know better than to answer loaded false dichotomy questions.
Seems to me that this can be applied to either side of the argument.
The difference is, that while we are all "ignorant" when it comes to origins, at least those coming from the Christian perspective (or even ID) admit that their position requires a modicum of faith.
No such admission from evos (in my experience...).
If the first group of “Darwinists” was wrong - it logically follows that this second group of “Darwinists” must be correct.
The fact that science changes based upon new evidence is only proffered up as a weakness of the scientific method by idiots who don’t understand the way science works and why it is useful.
It is neither false or dichotomy question but rather a simple one....easily answered....from your heart and even your brain
Did I develop from a single cell organism that must not have had a beginning to the incredible mind boggling complex human being or was I created by a creator....
There is not a lot of wiggle room because the cruel truth of the matter is there is no real evidence we macro evolved...New species from old species.....micro evolved ... yes....that is found in nature...
Heberews 11:6 But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.
Science isn't based upon faith - but upon evidence. I have faith that God is; I have a lot of evidence that natural selection is the mechanism whereby living things evolve.
All you have there is a comparison of genes. Our livestock have essentially the same package of genes that we have, and for the most part the exact same variations in the very same numbers.
Where we differ most are in the way our chromosomes are linked together ~ ours are opposite the way they are linked among the Great Apes for example. Then, there's epigenetics ~ that's where chemicals external to the genes short circuit them, or link quite disparate genes together in some novel fashion. Finally, there are places in the DNA where we have "spaces" rather than copies of genes.
The complexity of life occurs at a higher level than the genes.
Two ways to look at that ~ (1) evolution, to the degree it exists, probably doesn't work very fast when it comes to the genes ~ and may have no effect at all on them. (2) The fellow taking down the parts off the shelf used a basic mix ~ Cosmic Standard Number 1. Then he welded in some other stuff.
All you have there is a comparison of genes. Our livestock have essentially the same package of genes that we have, and for the most part the exact same variations in the very same numbers.
Where we differ most are in the way our chromosomes are linked together ~ ours are opposite the way they are linked among the Great Apes for example. Then, there's epigenetics ~ that's where chemicals external to the genes short circuit them, or link quite disparate genes together in some novel fashion. Finally, there are places in the DNA where we have "spaces" rather than copies of genes.
The complexity of life occurs at a higher level than the genes.
Two ways to look at that ~ (1) evolution, to the degree it exists, probably doesn't work very fast when it comes to the genes ~ and may have no effect at all on them. (2) The fellow taking down the parts off the shelf used a basic mix ~ Cosmic Standard Number 1. Then he welded in some other stuff.
Thay never are, according to the person asking them.
By definition, "God" and "plan" are incompatible with evolution.
The same genes in chromosome #2 are lined up in the same order as in the Ape chromosomes - and there are even telomere sequences in the middle of Chromosome #2 where one would find them at the ends of the Ape chromosomes.
Epigenetics is just another way of regulating genes - it is done through methylation modifications right there on the DNA molecule - not external to it. This modification tends to wrap up a gene that is not going to be used in ‘chromatin’ where it will not be available to RNA polymerase that would express the gene.
For example there is a sequence outside the gene for the lactase enzyme used to digest the milk sugar lactose. In almost all mammals (and most humans) this sequence is epigenetically modified so that after weening from mother's milk - the gene is wrapped up in chromatin and no longer used - making them “lactose intolerant”.
This sequence is mutated in many European populations - and in some African populations that herd cattle - so that the normal epigenetic change doesn't happen and the gene for lactase is expressed throughout life.
What do you mean by “spaces” in DNA?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.