Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Darwin Among the Believers (theory of evolution crucial for many fields)
Tech Central Station ^ | 07/22/2005 | Frederick Turner

Posted on 07/22/2005 4:46:53 AM PDT by Nicholas Conradin

In a recent TCS essay ("Darwin and Design: The Evolution of a Flawed Debate") I attacked what I regarded as the excesses of both sides of the evolution-creationism debate. There were angry responses in the mail and the blogosphere from both the creationist and the evolution sides, which pleased me, since there were clearly oxen on both sides that felt they had been gored, and caps in my piece that were felt to have, uncomfortably, fit. The angry evolutionists were especially interesting, as they often wound up admitting implicitly that their real agenda was atheism -- while denying that there was any social policy message in that agenda.

In the essay I did state flatly that the theory of evolution had been proved. I wanted it to be clear where I stood. Much of the mail I received protested about that statement. I hold to it, and hold to it not as my own opinion, but as a fact, like the existence of Australia, which is not my opinion but a fact. But I do know that there are many who sincerely, and given their range of knowledge, rationally, do not believe in the theory of evolution.

By the theory of evolution I mean the origination of new species from common ancestral forms by an iterated process of genetic mutation, natural selection, and hereditary transmission, whereby the frequencies of newly altered, repeated, and old genes and introns in a given lineage can cross ecological, structural, and behavioral thresholds that radically separate one species from another. In one sense, this can be summed up in a syllogism, which must be true if we make the basic and essential act of faith that logic itself is true: survivors survive. Given enough time, variation among the genes of individuals, variations in habitat in space and time, the process by which genes translate into proteins, tissues, and organs, and the thresholds that define biological species, all of which can be observationally verified, the principle of the "survivors survive" syllogism must bring about a huge branching of different kinds of life.

The above summary statement of the theory will not convince opponents, who will be able to pick philosophical holes in it (which holes have been sewn up by countless scientists and philosophers in the last 150 years). But what opponents of evolution do not perhaps realize is what they are up against in terms of sheer human and civilizational achievement based on the evolutionary paradigm. This is not a proof of evolution, any more than the four-thousand year history of the survival of the Jewish people is a proof of Judaism or the worldwide congregation of Christianity is a proof of that religion; but it is an indication of the kind of scholarship that would be needed to refute it.

There are at least 50 major journals in the academic field of biology. All accept without question the theory of evolution as I outlined it above. They are not attempting even to prove the theory, any more than math journals attempt to prove that the sum of the internal angles of a plane triangle is 180 degrees, or engineering journals revisit the existence of gravity. But they would be nonsense without the theory of evolution, just as engineering would be nonsense without gravity. Each of those journals is published about four times a year; several of them have been in existence for over a hundred years. Each journal contains at least ten articles of about 2-20 pages, and each of those articles represents several months' or years' work by a team of trained biologists whose most compelling material and moral interest would be to disprove the work of all their predecessors and to make an immortal name by doing so. The work of the biological teams is required to be backed up by exhaustive experiment and observation, together with exact statistical analysis of the results. There is a continuous process of search through all these articles by trained reviewers looking for discrepancies among them and demanding new experimental work to resolve them. Since every one of these articles relies on the consistency and truth of the theory of evolution, every one of them adds implicitly to the veracity of the theory. By my calculation, then, opponents of evolution must find a way of matching and disproving, experiment by experiment, observation by observation, and calculation by calculation, at least two million pages of closely reasoned scientific text, representing roughly two million man-years of expert research and perhaps trillions of dollars of training, salaries, equipment, and infrastructure.

But the task of the opponent does not end here. For biology is not the only field for which the theory of evolution is an essential foundation. Geology, physical anthropology, agricultural science, environmental science, much of chemistry, some areas of physics (e.g. protein folding) and even disciplines such as climatology and oceanography (which rely on the evolutionary history of the planet in its calculations about the composition of the atmosphere and oceans), are at least partially founded on evolution. Most important of all for our immediate welfare, medicine is almost impossible as a research discipline without evolutionary theory. So perhaps the opponent must also throw in another 4 million pages, four million man-years, and ten trillion dollars -- and be prepared to swallow the billions of human deaths that might follow the abandonment of the foundations of medical, mining, environmental, agricultural, and climatological knowledge.

If what is at stake is a proposition in the theology of biblical interpretation that is not shared by a large minority or possibly a majority of Christians and Jews, perhaps it might be more prudent to check the accuracy of the theology, which, after all, is a human creation even if scripture itself is conceded to be divinely inspired. Might not God's intentions be revealed better in the actual history and process of nature, his creative expression, than in the discrepancies we might hope to find in its self-consistency and coherent development?


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: atheism; biology; creationism; crevolist; darwin; evolution; medicine; pharisee
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381-400 next last
To: Rifleman

I'm not looking for an argument. Evolution is wholeheartedly incompatible with my belief in God. I never did ask you to agree.


21 posted on 07/22/2005 5:30:43 AM PDT by cyborg (http://mentalmumblings.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP

I often disagreed, but always tried to understand the subject matter.

"Descended from a chimp" is either a rhetorical strawman or evidence that the poster didn't have a single clue as to the subject of evolution.


22 posted on 07/22/2005 5:31:18 AM PDT by Rifleman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nicholas Conradin
So the world began with a Big Bang? So who do you suppose caused the Big Bang?

Secular humanism has one major flaw: it has no beginning.
23 posted on 07/22/2005 5:38:14 AM PDT by R.W.Ratikal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
Gravity and inertia are the "tools" that God has decided to use to keep it running on its "little track".

If gravity and interia are God's tools, why can't evolution be as well?

24 posted on 07/22/2005 5:38:41 AM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP

Gravity and inertia are the "tools" that God has decided to use to keep it running on its "little track".
______________________________________________

Evolution is a tool God has decided to use to make species...
_______________________________________________

What is the difference in the two statements?


25 posted on 07/22/2005 5:42:58 AM PDT by El Laton Caliente (NRA Member & GUNSNET.NET Moderator)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP

> Gravity and inertia are the "tools" that God has decided to use to keep it running on its "little track".
:)

Just as evolution is the "tool" God has decided to use to create the diversity of life on Earth.


26 posted on 07/22/2005 5:45:53 AM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: R.W.Ratikal

> Secular humanism has one major flaw: it has no beginning.

A: How is that a flaw? An unanswered question is not a flaw; it's a challenge.

B: God has no beginning. Hence, God is flawed. Does the logic hold?


27 posted on 07/22/2005 5:47:12 AM PDT by orionblamblam ("You're the poster boy for what ID would turn out if it were taught in our schools." VadeRetro)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Rifleman
Please humor me.
Doesn't the evolutionary tree include primates as our distant relatives? So, I believe that that makes the "Descending from a chimp" comment valid. I have read articles and seen diagrams by evolutionists purporting the very thing you seem to be upset about.
28 posted on 07/22/2005 5:47:45 AM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP

No, a chimp is particular type of primate. Likewise, humans are a particular type of primate. Both humans and chimps descended from earier primates. But humans did not descend from chimps.

Now that I've cleared that up. Any attempt by a creationist reading this, and then continuing to accuse the theory of the evolution of stating that humans descended from chimps, is a liar.


29 posted on 07/22/2005 5:55:07 AM PDT by TOWER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: TOWER
No, a chimp is particular type of primate. Likewise, humans are a particular type of primate. Both humans and chimps descended from earier primates. But humans did not descend from chimps.

Now that I've cleared that up. Any attempt by a creationist reading this, and then continuing to accuse the theory of the evolution of stating that humans descended from chimps, is a liar.
---
Let me see if I got this straight. Both humans and chimps are "particular type of primate". Would I be correct in saying that they both have a common ancestor (evolutionary speaking)?
Would you be more comfortable if I said that you believe we descended from gibbons, orangutans, or apes?
30 posted on 07/22/2005 6:10:35 AM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
My belief in God and the Bible trumps questionable scientific theories.

That's how the Muslims feel too.

That's how the Pope and his Cardinals felt when they threatened Galileo with torture for declaring that the evidence indicated that the Earth goes around the Sun, and not vice versa.

Today's creationists are no different in their fundamental errors about how best to find the truth about the world. They believe that if careful study and repeated testing/verification of the reality around us indicates one thing, and their *interpretation* of what the Bible says indicates to *them* another, then by gosh, their *presumption* about what the Bible says trumps reality. Those who ignore the Dark Ages are doomed to repeat it.

This example is from a few hundred years ago, but the parallels to the anti-science attitudes, objections, arguments, and activities of modern creationists should be entirely obvious:

Biblical dogma: "The Earth is firmly fixed; it shall not be moved." -Psalms 104:5

Scientist (Galileo): "The doctrine of the movements of the earth and the fixity of the sun is condemned [by creationists] on the ground that the Scriptures speak in many places of the sun moving and the earth standing still… I think that in the discussion of natural problems we ought to begin not with the Scriptures, but with experiments and demonstrations.", "I accepted the Copernican position several years ago and discovered from thence the cause of many natural effects which are doubtless inexplicable by the current theories. [i.e., the new theory better matched and explained the observations - Ich.]" -- Galileo Galilei

Creationist rebuttal: "But to want to affirm that the sun really is fixed in the center of the heavens and only revolves around itself (i. e., turns upon its axis ) without traveling from east to west, and that the earth is situated in the third sphere and revolves with great speed around the sun, is a very dangerous thing, not only by irritating all the philosophers and scholastic theologians, but also by injuring our holy faith and rendering the Holy Scriptures false. [...] And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. [...] Third. I say that if there were a true demonstration that the sun was in the center of the universe and the earth in the third sphere, and that the sun did not travel around the earth but the earth circled the sun, then it would be necessary to proceed with great caution in explaining the passages of Scripture which seemed contrary, and we would rather have to say that we did not understand them than to say that something was false which has been demonstrated. But I do not believe that there is any such demonstration; none has been shown to me. It is not the same thing to show that the appearances are saved by assuming that the sun really is in the center and the earth in the heavens. [...] I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God."
-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, April 12, 1615 letter to Foscarini.

Papal condemnation/sentencing of Galileo: "Whereas you, Galileo, son of the late Vaincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, were in the year 1615 denounced to this Holy Office for holding as true the false doctrine taught by some that the Sun is the center of the world and immovable and that the Earth moves, and also with a diurnal motion; for having disciples to whom you taught the same doctrine; for holding correspondence with certain mathematicians of Germany concerning the same; for having printed certain letters, entitled "On the Sunspots," wherein you developed the same doctrine as true; and for replying to the objections from the Holy Scriptures, which from time to time were urged against it [i.e. for disagreeing with Bible-based criticisms - Ich.] [...] This Holy Tribunal being therefore of intention to proceed against the disorder and mischief thence resulting, which went on increasing to the prejudice of the Holy Faith, [...] The proposition that the Sun is the center of the world and does not move from its place is absurd and false philosophically and formally heretical, because it is expressly contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] The proposition that the Earth is not the center of the world and immovable but that it moves, and also with a diurnal motion, is equally absurd and false philosophically and theologically considered at least erroneous in faith. [...] Furthermore, in order to completely eliminate such a pernicious doctrine, and not let it creep any further to the great detriment of Catholic truth, the Holy Congregation of the Index issued a decree which prohibited books which treat of this and declaring the doctrine itself to be false and wholly contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture. [...] Likewise, you confessed that in several places the exposition of the said book is expressed in such a way that a reader could get the idea that the arguments given for the false side were effective enough to be capable of convincing, rather than being easy to refute. [...] We say, pronounce, sentence and declare that you, Galileo, by reason of these things which have been detailed in the trial and which you have confessed already, have rendered yourself according to this Holy Office vehemently suspect of heresy, namely of having held and believed a doctrine that is false and contrary to the divine and Holy Scripture: namely that Sun is the center of the world and does not move from east to west, and that one may hold and defend as probable an opinion after it has been declared and defined contrary to Holy Scripture. [...] Consequently, you have incurred all the censures and penalties enjoined and promulgated by the sacred Canons and all particular and general laws against such delinquents. [This includes torture - Ich.]

Under threat of torture, and mindful that the Church had already burned at the stake Giordano Bruno for the same "crime", Galileo publicly renounced his "false" doctrine that the Earth revolves around the Sun: "I, Galileo Galilei, son of the late Vincenzo Galilei, Florentine, aged seventy years, arraigned personally before this tribunal, and kneeling before you [...] I wrote and printed a book in which I discussed this doctrine already condemned, and adduced arguments of great cogency in its favor [horrors! - Ich.], without presenting any solution of these [i.e., without reconciling it with the Church's interpretation of Scripture -- Ich.]; and for this cause I have been pronounced by the Holy Office to be vehemently suspected of heresy, that is to say, of having held and believed that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth is not the center and moves. [...] with sincere heart and unfeigned faith I abjure, curse, and detest the aforesaid errors and heresies, and generally every other error and sect whatsoever contrary to the said Holy Church; and I swear that in the future I will never again say or assert, verbally or in writing, anything that might furnish occasion for a similar suspicion regarding me"
-- Galileo's forced recantation, June 27, 1633

Despite this Inquisition-ordered renunciation of the truth, Galileo was held under house arrest by the Inquisition until the day he died, many years later on January 8, 1641...

Galileo was right -- the Church was wrong.

How long does it take creationists to admit they were wrong about an obvious scientific truth? Galileo's banned book stating the "heresy" that the Earth revolves around the Sun, "Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems", was finally taken off the Vatican's list of banned books in 1835 -- almost 200 years after Galileo was forced to denounce it.

How long before they finally stop fighting the "false heretical doctrine" of evolutionary biology?

I'll close with some various appropriate quotes from Galileo -- note how much they sound like what various evolutionists have been posting here on FreeRepublic:

"To command the professors of astronomy to confute their own observations is to enjoin an impossibility, for it is to command them not to see what they do see, and not to understand what they do understand, and to find what they do not discover."

"And who can doubt that it will lead to the worst disorders when minds created free by God are compelled to submit slavishly to an outside will? When we are told to deny our senses and subject them to the whim of others? When people devoid of whatsoever competence are made judges over experts and are granted authority to treat them as they please? These are the novelties which are apt to bring about the ruin of commonwealths and the subversion of the state."

"Facts which at first seem improbable will, even on scant explanation, drop the cloak which has hidden them and stand forth in naked and simple beauty."

"It is surely harmful to souls to make it a heresy to believe what is proved."

"It is very pious to say and prudent to affirm that the holy Bible can never speak untruth -- whenever its true meaning is understood. But I believe nobody will deny that it is often very abstruse, and may say things which are quite different from what its bare words signify."

"My dear Kepler, what would you say of the learned here, who, replete with the pertinacity of the asp, have steadfastly refused to cast a glance through the telescope? What shall we make of this? Shall we laugh, or shall we cry?"

"In order to convince those obdurate men, who are out for the vain approval of the stupid vulgar, it would not be enough even if the stars came down on earth to bring witness about themselves."

"I repent having given the world a portion of my writings; I feel inclined to consign what is left to the flames and thus placate at last the inextinguishable hatred of my enemies."

"By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox."

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

"It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures, and yet do not consider themselves bound to answer reason and experiment."

"Nothing physical which sense-experience sets before our eyes, or which necessary demonstrations prove to us, ought to be called into question (much less condemned) upon the testimony of biblical passages."

For more details, see:
The Galileo Project

The Trial of Galileo

Sidebar on the "Biblical evidence" for an Earth-centric Solar System which the Pope and his Church relied upon to "refute" the "heresy" of Galileo's Sun-centric Solar System:
"And if Your Reverence would read not only the Fathers but also the commentaries of modern writers on Genesis, Psalms, Ecclesiastes and Josue, you would find that all agree in explaining literally (ad litteram) that the sun is in the heavens and moves swiftly around the earth, and that the earth is far from the heavens and stands immobile in the center of the universe. Now consider whether in all prudence the Church could encourage giving to Scripture a sense contrary to the holy Fathers and all the Latin and Greek commentators."

[...]

"I add that the words 'the sun also riseth and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to the place where he ariseth, etc.' were those of Solomon, who not only spoke by divine inspiration but was a man wise above all others and most learned in human sciences and in the knowledge of all created things, and his wisdom was from God. Thus it is not too likely that he would affirm something which was contrary to a truth either already demonstrated, or likely to be demonstrated. And if you tell me that Solomon spoke only according to the appearances, and that it seems to us that the sun goes around when actually it is the earth which moves, as it seems to one on a ship that the beach moves away from the ship, I shall answer that one who departs from the beach, though it looks to him as though the beach moves away, he knows that he is in error and corrects it, seeing clearly that the ship moves and not the beach. But with regard to the sun and the earth, no wise man is needed to correct the error, since he clearly experiences that the earth stands still and that his eye is not deceived when it judges that the moon and stars move."

-- Cardinal Robert Bellarmine, as "Master of Controversial Questions" for the Church, in April 12, 1615 letter to Paolo Foscarini

FYI, Bellarmine had a big role in the trial of Galileo.

The relevant portions of the mentioned books of the Bible are:

Ecclesiastes 1 (Verses 5-6): 5 The sun riseth, and goeth down, and returneth to his place: and there rising again, 6 Maketh his round by the south, and turneth again to the north: the spirit goeth forward surveying all places round about, and returneth to his circuits.

Joshua 10 (Verse 13-14): And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.

Psalm 19 (Verses 4-5): 4 Their line is gone out through all the earth, and their words to the end of the world. In them hath he set a tabernacle for the sun, 5 Which is as a bridegroom coming out of his chamber, and rejoiceth as a strong man to run a race.

Psalm 92 (Verse 1): The Lord hath reigned, he is clothed with beauty: the Lord is clothed with strength, and hath girded himself. For he hath established the world which shall not be moved.

Psalm 103 (Verses 3-5) Who coverest the higher rooms thereof with water. Who makest the clouds thy chariot: who walkest upon the wings of the winds. 4 Who makest thy angels spirits: and thy ministers a burning fire. 5 Who hast founded the earth upon its own bases: it shall not be moved for ever and ever.

Isaiah 40 (Verse 21-22): 21 Do you not know? hath it not been heard? hath it not been told you from the beginning? have you not understood the foundations of the earth? 22 It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth, and the inhabitants thereof are as locusts: he that stretcheth out the heavens as nothing, and spreadeth them out as a tent to dwell in.

Read the above material. Really *read* it. The only difference between today's anti-evolution creationists and the persecutors of Galileo is the torture -- the mindset and the fallacies are identical. And judging from the emails I've received, some of them would like to bring back the torture if they could.


31 posted on 07/22/2005 6:13:32 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: El Laton Caliente

One statement is true and one statement is not true.
That is the difference.
That is the crux.


32 posted on 07/22/2005 6:13:54 AM PDT by Stark_GOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
...but no prof is going to convince me I'm descended from a chimp.

Not a chimp, just a common ancestor.

33 posted on 07/22/2005 6:17:31 AM PDT by Zeroisanumber
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: cyborg
. I still had to learn it to pass college biology but no prof is going to convince me I'm descended from a chimp.

So put more plainly, no matter how strong the evidence from the real world, you'll reject a conclusion if you find its implications personally distasteful?

How do you rationalize away the evidence of shared endogenous retroviruses, for example?

34 posted on 07/22/2005 6:19:00 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP
One statement is true and one statement is not true. That is the difference. That is the crux.

...and you determine truth from nontruth by...? What reality-checks do you perform on your notions of what is true or not?

35 posted on 07/22/2005 6:20:03 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Nicholas Conradin

>> perhaps it might be more prudent to check the accuracy of the theology,<<

Perhaps it might be more prudent of the evolutionists to check the accuracy of their belief in a system that cannot demonstrate how life came about from non-life.


36 posted on 07/22/2005 6:21:36 AM PDT by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP

Gibbons are a type of primate that we share a common ancestor with, but we did not descend from them.

Orangutans are also a type of primate that we share common ancestor with, but we also did not descend from them.

As for apes, technically humans are apes. Orangutans and chimps are also apes. All apes are primates, and all apes share a common ancestor.

So feel free to say that humans descended from earlier apes (or earlier primates) to your hearts content. But humans did not descend from chimps, gibbons, nor orangutans. However, we do share a common ancestor.


37 posted on 07/22/2005 6:26:09 AM PDT by TOWER
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat; Nicholas Conradin


>> perhaps it might be more prudent to check the accuracy of the theology,<<

Perhaps it might be more prudent of the evolutionists to check the accuracy of their belief in a system that cannot demonstrate how life came about from non-life.



I am neither a evolutionist nor a creationist. I simply state the argument for the position that is most plausible of the two. One is supported by logic and a scientific method and the other is based on faith and belief with little evidence. It would be more logical and I would prefer to argue proofs for and against evolution based on the tenets and proposals of proof for evolution. Concerning creation I would would argue for and against the philosophy of creation using Descarte's Six Ontological Proofs for and against The Existence Of God. If one can prove the existence of God then by extension he has also proved the Theory of Creation. The question then becomes how was God the Creator created or invented. To simply argue the case of Creation against Evolution is mostly a waste of thought. The case for or against either cannot be argued logically because there is no determined format for proofs that might be acceptable. The argument for Creation does not accept scientific method and deduction as a proof even though the the very civilization they live in was comprised and accomplished with scientific method and deduction. Their argument for creation is I think it, believe it, have faith in it, I was taught it, I say it is so, and I don't need proof. This position cannot be refuted within the context of their thought. Creation VS evolution also excludes other possibilities that are rarely presented in a thoughtful manner.


38 posted on 07/22/2005 6:33:35 AM PDT by jec41 (Screaming Eagle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
I don't propose to know how life came from non-life, but I do believe it can be demonstrated in many ways that the period from the first living thing to the present was multiple billions of years long and characterized by many extinctions and false starts.

There may well be a Designer, but if there is He works very slowly and makes extensive use of the trial and error method.

39 posted on 07/22/2005 6:34:41 AM PDT by Uncle Fud (Imagine the President calling fascism a "religion of peace" in 1942)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Stark_GOP; TOWER
Let me see if I got this straight. Both humans and chimps are "particular type of primate".

Yes.

Would I be correct in saying that they both have a common ancestor (evolutionary speaking)?

Yes.

Would you be more comfortable if I said that you believe we descended from gibbons, orangutans, or apes? Gibbons, no. Orangutans, no. Apes, yes.

Gibbons and orangutans are specific types of apes which are not on the ancestral lineage of human beings. They either arose after the human lineage split off from the rest of the apes, or their own ancestral branch split off from ours before their branch differentiated into gibbons and orangutans.

"Apes", on the other hand, is an all-encompassing term for the "higher" primates, and the human ancestral lineage did indeed diverge from within this larger group.

But I think you may be laboring under a misapprehension. While we did descend from ancestors which could accurately be classified within the ape group, we're *still* apes. Apes of the human variety. Just as we're still primates, still mammals, still vertebrates, and so on.

40 posted on 07/22/2005 6:37:35 AM PDT by Ichneumon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 381-400 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson