Posted on 12/21/2005 6:22:46 AM PST by truthfinder9
One of biggest paradigm shifts in origins in recent years is when genetics and morphological studies began to show that Neanderthals and humans weren’t related. Sure, a lot of Darwin Fundies around here don’t know that because they get all of their science from the talking point lists of their Fundamentalist Leaders. So this is probably a big shock too, science is also showing that man is not related to any hominids including apes.
In the groundbreaking book, Who was Adam?, biochemist Fazale Rana examines the scientific research that is overturning Darwinian Fundamentalism. Here, using peer-reviewed research that the Darwin Fundies claim doesn’t exist, Rana shows man is unique and designed.
And he details the latest findings on the fossil record, junk DNA, Neanderthals, human and chimp genetics. There's more science here than most Darwin Fundies have ever read, but this will be the next great paradigm shift.
“The parallels between Genesis and the latest scientific data are profound...” - John A. Bloom, Ph.D., professor of physics, Biola University
On Rana’s previous book, Origins of Life:
“Evolution has just been dealt its deathblow. After reading Origins of Life, it is clear that evolution could not have occurred.” - Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry, 1996, professor of physics and astronomy, Rice University
Real science by real scientists. According to Darwin Fundies this doesn't exist, but here it is.
I think that the current hypothesis is that at some point the human brain reached an evolutionary tipping point. Add in human speech, toolmaking & symbolic manipulation (writing) and you have the beginnings of an intergenerational repository of knowledge. So while not all human beings are as bright as Isaac Newton or Albert Einstein, the sum of all human knowledge continues to expand.
Apes have the ability to stand on their hind legs. Doing so free's up the hands for other tasks. Some time ago in West Africa, an extended warm period forced some apes out of the trees and onto the savannah, where walking erect probably allowed the brain to remain cooler (and gave certain advantages in predator early-warning). So human intelligence may have rapidly evolved as a consequence of a behavioral adaptation brought about by a sudden environmental shift.
And that's just the beginning! When the kids leave the biology classroom, they're on their way to Newtonian, Euclidian, and Websterian Fundamentalist Indoctrination. Disagree with the teacher's religious views on the outcome of an equation, or a geometric proof, or the spelling of a word, and fail the course. Where does it stop?
When it comes to the origin of matter (or the origin of life itself) - the foundation of all theories of origin - Orthodox Darwinists are stuck with "duh, we don't know". Evolutionists find themselves in the same boat as those that believe in a designer - something existed forever or something sprang forth from nothing - both are miracles (supernatural based on our current knowledge of the natural)
Wouldn't be the first time that the fossil record has been sidetracked by false interpretation, or even outright fraud.
>>
a bare planet
Hardly an apt description of the cooling earth, churning with all kinds of complex molecules, bubbling with volcanic activity, rained on by fires and meteors from the sky.
It was a very busy place.
<<
Yea, like Mars with more water.
"But evo is not a cult evo is not a cult"
Do you define cult in Theological terms or Sociological terms?
The more man discovers, the more he thinks he knows everything.
Actually I think it works the other way... the more you know, the more you realize what it is you don't know (or don't yet know). In other words, a good answer raises several more questions.
I am closely related to my sister. She is not my mother. My niece and nephew are related to me, but they are not my children. This isn't very complicated stuff.
I also find it interesting that evolution is still "theory" which means it hasn't been proved conclusively and yet any other theory is dismissed. Funny how only one "theory" is considered science and any other theory is not.
Lets define some terms (from a google search):
Theory: a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena; "theories can incorporate facts and laws and tested hypotheses"; "true in fact and theory"
Hypothesis: a tentative theory about the natural world; a concept that is not yet verified but that if true would explain certain facts or phenomena; "a scientific hypothesis that survives experimental testing becomes a scientific theory"; "he proposed a fresh theory of alkalis that later was accepted in chemical practices"
Guess: an opinion or estimate based on incomplete evidence, or on little or no information
Law: a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature; "the laws of thermodynamics"
Assumption: premise: a statement that is assumed to be true and from which a conclusion can be drawn; "on the assumption that he has been injured we can infer that he will not to play"
Speculation: a hypothesis that has been formed by speculating or conjecturing (usually with little hard evidence)
Observation: any information collected with the senses
Data: factual information, especially information organized for analysis or used to reason or make decisions
Fact: when an observation is confirmed repeatedly and by many independent and competent observers, it can become a fact
Belief: any cognitive content (perception) held as true; religious faith
Faith the belief in something for which there is no evidence or logical proof
Dogma: a religious doctrine that is proclaimed as true without proof
Impression: a vague idea in which some confidence is placed; "his impression of her was favorable"; "what are your feelings about the crisis?"; "it strengthened my belief in his sincerity"; "I had a feeling that she was lying"
Based on this, evolution is a theory. CS and ID are beliefs.
From an NSF abstract:
As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.
Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.
Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.
Modified from RadioAstronomers's post #27 on another thread.
Okay, then lets look at another of the studies in the list you cite: "Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus" by Ovchinnikov et al.
"We estimated the age of the most recent common ancestor (MRCA) of the mtDNA of the eastern and western Neanderthals to be 151,000–352,000 years. This coincides with the time of emergence of the Neanderthal lineage in the palaeontological records14. The divergence of modern human and Neanderthal mtDNA was estimated to be between 365,000 and 853,000 years. Using the same model, we estimated the age of the earliest modern human divergences in mtDNA to be between 106,000 and 246,000 B.P."
Ping for later.
Intentional...I am a series genius.
I do not think this is what your saying but bare with me, I have to pose the question. Do you think there is no rational argument for these rights?
I believe there are rational arguments for them and I believe that the rational arguments for them are better than that against.
However, I think there are rational arguments against. For example, if we all lived regimented lives, where we were compelled to eat some specific diet, we may well, on the average, live longer. If I bring up that certain people have certain special needs, than the person supporting regimented diet can say that specific, regimented diets can be made for specific needs.
I'd just as soon skip to the chase: As part of my right to pursue happiness, I have the right to eat what I can afford to eat. Maybe I will live a shorter time because of it, but I will enjoy that time more. I cannot rationally demonstrate that -- after all, how do you rationally demonstrate "higher enjoyment"? -- so I appeal back to the authority of the Declaration of Independence for my argument.
Ahhh, if life was only as simple as an equation, we'd all be better off.....not.
Doesn't it make you just a tad suspicious that the scientists trotted out opposing evolution are basically entirely lab-based theoreticians?
And you basically can't find any that are people that have been out in the field digging up fossils and then examining them; paleonotologists and geologists are virtually non-existent on the ever-popular lists of creation "scientists."
(The Institute Creation Research MAY have an actual geologist or two that didn't get their degree from some microscopic non-accredited Bible College diploma factory - I forget...but the reality is that the two critical fields I named are notably absent from virtually all the lists posted.)
If you had a bunch of physicists and chemists in laboratories claiming birds couldn't fly on a theoretical basis, but all the field biologists who were out actually watching birds, or the biologists examining actual birds in their labs were never found on "lists of scientists who believe birds can't fly" wouldn't you be just a tiny bit suspicious of the claim that birds can't fly?
ROFL!!! Name one.
Even the creationists admit Neandertal was human.
I did...
...maybe these mutations aren’t so good for your genome...
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.