Battle over evolution heating up

News 8 Austin ^ | 8/20/2003 | Antonio Castelan

[fish hawk]

Evolution is a fact?!!!!! Great except for one thing, there is absolutely no proof what soever. Try again when you find that ever missing link.

[Almondjoy]

Well then we can't have a discussion on this.. I suggest trying to aquire more knowledge on the subject and then we can have our discussion.

[PatrickHenry]

I still contend it takes more faith to believe in evolution than to believe in God. But, if evolutionists were honest about the shortcoming of their religion, maybe there could be more honest dialogue.

I've been very civil in my responses to you, and I've also tried to be informative. But after your most recent post, I'm not going to bother any more. Trust me, I'm not abandoning our dialogue because the arguments you've presented are too powerful for me. Have a nice day.

[Nephi]

Before you pronnounce upon evolution, try to get it correct. The above statement of yours does not pertain to evolution.

Well...it is your fairytale.

[Rudder]

If that's the best you can do, you're out of your league on this thread.

[Conservinator]

Yes my friend, one has to do with the creation of man, the other with the creation of the universe. Although they are different events, they do have a link . . . He's called the Creator!!

Ahah . . . we have found the missing link!! God did create the universe and He did create man!!

By the way, no one has ever been able to answer this question to my satisfaction . . . If man eveloved from apes, why are there still apes? (NOTE, I will not accept the answer that the democratic party needs all the members it can get!!).

[Almondjoy]

I'm absoutely bolder.. I've learned on here though to give certain people small doses as to not overwhelm them. :) In any case I certainly agree with you. I have reservations about the bible. If it was actually WRITTEN by the hand of God.... then take it as it stands. But since it was written by man. Ahhh well then we have to assume man's bias and/or need to explain the unknown actually took over for fact.

[King Prout]

Ok, I'm game to give it a try.

The short answer: Man did not evolve from any current species of ape.

A longer, still very simplified answer:
The various biological and anthropological data indicate that Man and the current great apes evolved from an earlier common ancestral primate species, diverging over generations as each specialized for their changing ecological niches. The progenitor species is itself extinct, replaced by the divergent families of speciated descendants.
Moreover, the progenitor species was a divergence (or, as seems to be the case, based on genetic analysis rather than morphological comparison, was a SET of divergences) from an even earlier common ancestral group. That earlier group gave rise to the brances which eventually speciated into lesser and greater primate groups: the monkeys, the apes, and the hominids.

The above is a clear answer to your stated question. I am highly surprised that no one has ever answered your question in this manner. Whether or not you accept this explanation is irrelevant to its clarity.

If you do not accept this answer to your specific question (reminder "If man eveloved from apes, why are there still apes?") then it would seem your "satisfaction" is not derived from a desire for clarity or rational analysis.

If this is indeed the case, if indeed you remain "unsatisfied" on this point, this would indicate that the only explanation which would "satisfy" you would have to be one which kowtows to some kind of emotional and/or indoctrinated bias.

I cannot address those terms, and have no desire to try.

[King Prout]

ah, well... I never liked having to spoonfeed.
besides, I truly enjoy watching their faces when they suddenly understand that they are trapped in a logical "If-Then" conundrum.

[balrog666]

ah, well... I never liked having to spoonfeed.

Placemarker.

[PatrickHenry]

My usual answer to "Why are there still apes?" is to ask: If you have a tall child, why are you still short?

[King Prout]

ah. I usually begin from an assumption of sincerety on their part.

[King Prout]

indexed? ok.
cute kitten, btw.

[SpinyNorman]

I stand by what I said, viz., it takes more faith to believe man evolved from apes than to simply believe Genesis 1.

So evolutionists have more faith than creationists? ;-) I think the operating word is "simply." Seriously, I believe in God, but believing in the literal translation of the Bible is stretching it a bit. There are plenty of good things to learn in the Bible other than whether it actually took six days to create the universe. I think my approach is very reasonable.

And, evolution is still nothing more than an hypothesis, i.e., a guess.

Then logically, it follows that creationism is nothing more than a mythology, i.e. a story designed to promulgate a moral lesson.

In The Journal of the American Scientific Affiliation, (1960, pp.6,7) W.R. Thompson points out that "Modern Darwinism palaeontologists are obliged, just like their predecessors and like Darwin, to water down the facts with subsidiary hypothesis, which, however plausible, are in the nature of things, unverifiable.....This situation, where scientific men rally to the defence of a doctrine they are unable to define scientifically, much less demonstrate with scientific rigour, attempting to maintain its credit with the public by the suppression of criticism and the elimination of difficulties, is abnormal and undesirable in science."

The same is true of creationism, especially with respect to scientific rigor (which seems to have some value to you here when it supports your beliefs). How much rigor goes into proving what the Bible says is literally true? You really have to understand that the worth of the Bible is not nullified if some things in it are not absolutely and literally true. I might add that 40 years has produced significantly more scientific rigor and

I repeat, I stand by what I said.

Likewise, I am sure.

[SpinyNorman]

The concept of scientist as the thoroughly dispassionate disinterested observer and recorder does not fit any university within the known universe...

Creationism vs. Evoulution aside, I could not agree with you more. Nothing is more pathetic than watching an old PI (principal investigator for the non-academics; the head scientist) defend his tired old theories, around which he has devoted a lifetime, against new theories and discoveries that come about as a result of new technology and evidence. It has happened to me (getting screwed by the old PI, I mean). Scientists are only human, and rather sheltered ones at that.

Now, back to the discussion, if you substitute "old PI" for creationist, and "new theories and discoveries" for evolutionist, one begins to see that the same problems persist in both camps. Creationism has the problem that there are no new theories, only 2000 year old ones.

[King Prout]

...it was written by man. Ahhh well then we have to assume man's bias and/or need to explain the unknown...

Not merely bias. Limited vocabulary and understanding of physics, biology, chemistry, etc... God might indeed be an infinitely perfect and potent being, but even He cannot explain quantum mechanics to a person with a five-year-old's vocabulary and a completely parochial worldview. Such a person lacks the terms with which to define and correlate the concepts. All he can say is "God's mysterious" or "Oo-oooo! Maaaaaaagic!"

[Dimensio]

If man eveloved from apes, why are there still apes?

There are still apes because there are still environments in which their populations can continue to reproduce.

no one has ever been able to answer this question to my satisfaction

That could be because you're looking for an answer that fits within your own strawman conceptions rather than allowing for the possibility that your notion of how evolution works is inaccurate, which is what seems to be the case.

[King Prout]

I'm wondering what the response will be to your post, and/or to my #168.

[Dimensio]

I have a sneaking suspicion -- though it might just be from my cynical nature -- that Conservinator will not respond to either posting because Conservinator is a hit-and-runner, so sure of his or her own brilliance that he or she just assumes that everyone has been stumped by the great question.

[King Prout]

ah - and here in my naivete I was assuming his good will.
I am ashamed.