Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Ahban
At 45 I thought you were running away from trying to get meaningful numbers, even though you had commented that the original post was "fact based" when you thought those man-chimp numbers were in your favor.

Which thread are you reading, man?

I understood your sudden reluctance to acknowledge the value of mathematical models as the result of your foresight that taken to their reasonable conclusion, the numbers don't support the evolution of man.

Never said that. I wanted to establish a baseline. If chimps are 95% the same a man, what does that mean? How does that compare to intra-human genome comparisons? How close are humans to, say, goldfish? Without any kind of reference point, 5% is a meaningless figure.

I understood your sudden reluctance to acknowledge the value of mathematical models as the result of your foresight that taken to their reasonable conclusion, the numbers don't support the evolution of man. A couple of posts later you said I had misread you on that, and I took you at your word.

Once again, here is the context of that remark.

I am trying to take these numbers to their logical conclusion, practically begging any and all of you to present your models as I have mine.

Where have you been? We have! Sexual reproduction, gene duplication, transposition, and viral action have all been presented and identified as mechanisms for genetic modification. You sought to dismiss virii by referring to my remarks as "C-man's mystery virus" until Sentis expounded on the concept, but have since been content to let the matter drop. Nebullis appeared and made note of the fact that mutation rates appear to be consistent with the observed genetic differences between chimps and man given the time frame.

But here's the rub, even if those mechanisms are shown to be inadequate, this IN NO WAY provides support for a designer. Your only argument at the point appears to be "What we know can't account for the changes, it must have been the Designer." What you forget is that unless we have evidence to the contrary, we have to exhaust all the possible natural alternatives before a Designer might be considered.

I made the same point in post 63 and concluded with this question: If a Designer is responsible for the chimp-human divergence, how did he do it, and would we humans be able to distinguish Designer-induced genetic changes from those occuring naturally? You claimed that I'm attempting to sidestep the issue.

I'm sorry, but I think I'm starting to lose interest in this thread. I do appreciate your efforts, but your responses indicate that you don't appear to be comprehending the points I'm trying to make. Maybe I'm not being clear, maybe you don't understand, maybe it's a combination of the two. Whatever the case, I seem to be spending more time regurgitating our conversations than making any progress forward.

87 posted on 02/16/2003 3:05:20 PM PST by Condorman (I get my monkeys for nothing and my chimps for free.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies ]


To: Condorman
From this thread:


88 posted on 02/16/2003 3:10:14 PM PST by Condorman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]

To: Condorman
I agree that it is time for this thread to come to an end. It is clear that I am not going to get what I have been asking for. Good luck in the future.
89 posted on 02/16/2003 7:29:45 PM PST by Ahban
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 87 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


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