Re: Difference between humans and apes, a question for creationists.
- From: Frank J <fnci@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 05:39:41 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 7, 7:07 am, Ron O <rokim...@xxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 7, 4:20 am, spintronic <spintro...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 6, 8:14 pm, DJT <mousede...@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
This is for Ray, or Tony, or "adman" or anyone else who chooses to
answer.
Karl von Linne, better known as Linnaeus, a century before Darwin,
in his system of categorization of life, placed humans within the same
category as the apes. Modern Creationists, on the other hand,
insist that humans and apes are separate creations, who should not be
placed in the same biological taxon.
Considering the anatomical, genetic, behavioral, and biochemical,
etc, similarities between humans and other species of apes, what,
exactly do you feel separates humans from apes?
What physical features do you feel places humans into a separate
category? In other words, what particular differences does the human
species possess that makes them different enough to require them being
classified as a separate "kind"?
Is it ability to read, or use language?
Is it problem solving?
Is civilization?
Is it lack of coarse hair?
Please, use your own words and describe the difference.
You seem to be doing well on your own.
Point's.
Noone argues they are not in the same "biological taxon".
It's pretty obvious.
This is not true. There are plenty of creationists that would
disagree with you. Just go over to AIG or the ICR and if you can get
in touch with any of those clowns it won't take you long to find one.
You should change your statement to most sane, rational, competent
people that are not ignorant of the data. That would not include
those like yourself that are not competent or rational, but agree with
the data on some whim.
It's interpritation of the evidence where we part company.
I could say 2 things.
1) Man has to be closest to "some" species. That "species"
happens to be chimp.
Nope. Does not follow. Just by chance all species could be
equidistant from each other if they were designed. Only under
sequential creation might you expect this to be the case, and only if
the designer reused his previous designs.
2) Question:
Intel decide to make the best model CPU they have ever made.
It will outperform all others. Do they:
a) build from scratch?
You have to watch out, you are going to alienate all the YECs. Why
deny common descent if you are going to go this far? What is the best
explanation for this sequential design given all the evidence?
How long ago did the designer design the flagellum? Sciences estimate
is over 2 billion years ago. At the Dover trial Behe did not contest
the fact that his IC structures were ancient. He even used that as an
excuse, but it backfired on him. He had to admit that he had no
evidence that the designer had been doing anything for hundreds of
millions of years.
I should have read this post before replying to your other one.
Did Behe actually say that? I read the transcripts in '06 but may have
missed that. In any case, he suggests in "Edge" that the designer did
intervene for the malaria parasite. I guess he meant that to be more
recent, but I also think that he has learned to be more politically
correct about stating any hypotheses of "when" anything ocurred.
He even went so far as to admit that his designer
could be dead.
That I remember well. But I am mind-boggled more each day how little
that fact is exploited. I could understand it if H. sapiens was neatly
divided into "hopeless creationists" (who would tune out any
inconvenient fact like Behe's startling admission) and
"evolutionists," but that's simply not the case.
Check it out. How long ago was the last IC system
that the IDiots tout "designed." The most recent one that I can think
of is the blood clotting and immune system. We are talking early
vertebrate evolution here. For the immune system likely before the
common ancestor of sharks and humans. If you are going to make this
proposal, why stop if the evidence doesn't stop?
b) modefy their "Pentium M" into a "32-bit-dual-core Yonah laptop
processor",
then into a "64-bit-dual-core" then into a "2x2 64-bit-dual-core = "64-
bit-quad-core" cpu?-
Guess how biological evolution works? The vast majority of the time
existing structures are used to do something different, just check it
out for any of the changes that you can see happening today. What is
to stop this from happening? Science expects biological evolution to
use this mechanism.
Intelligent design doesn't have to follow that way, but descent with
modification does. We have examples of horizontal transfer, but it is
mainly restricted to microorganisms, and we have determined the basis
for it. The first egg incubator that I designed and built had a wafer
thermostat. It was a simple expandable metal container with some
ether in it would expand as the temperature increased and break the
circuit and turn off the heat at a certain temperature. I replaced
this thermostat with one with a micro chip in it, but didn't change
anything else. Where is the incremental change? Where does the
previous design come in for the thermostat? There wasn't a microchip
in the previous design. All it was was the wafer thermostat with a
pressure switch and an electrical circuit connecting a light bulb as a
heat source. Remember your designer has billiions of years of
evolution or previous design to call up and use for any instance, so
why should the designer have used what it did in any example that you
can name? We have a reason and it is explained by descent with
modification, but what do you have?
You have to explain things like why we have different types of camera
lens eyes that both work on the same principles, and use very similar
parts, but are just different. Some say that one is better designed
than the other. Molluscs have an eye that a Sony engineer would have
designed. All the support material is behind the photoreceptors so
they don't interfere with the light reception through the lens, but
vertebrates have an eye that would have gotten any engineer fired,
with the support cells and blood vessels in front of the
photoreceptors and they have to create a blind spot in the eye so that
they can get the junk from the front to the back and into the rest of
the brain and body. It looks like a coin flip. Either the support
cells develop on one side or the other. The thing about biological
evolution is that nature is only interested in what works, it modifies
things to work better later. Even with the junk in the front of the
photoreceptors they worked well enough to get the job done. It might
be better to have it the other way around, but all vertebrates are
stuck with the eye their common ancestor had. Why is that? Why
didn't the designer give us the other type of eye. Why should we be
limited to the same eye other apes have. Why should they have the
same eye that monkeys have? Why should monkeys have the same eye as
other mammals have? Why should we have the same eye as a fish when it
looks like there are advantages to having the eye of a squid? There
are obviously at least two eye designs out there, so why keep using
one over the other?
Why is it that when we can trace the path of evolution that it is
preexisting parts that have changed. Just look at the "IC" blood
clotting system. The ID perps don't use it as much as they used to
because it turns out that we have known for decades that a lot of the
parts evolved through gene duplication. We can see how a series of
gene duplications happened over time to build up the system to what we
have today. Just check it out and see the similarity of the parts to
each other. We know why biological evolution has to work that way,
but why does the designer have to work that way?
Don't just be glib and obnoxious. Put out your model to explain all
this. What is your time scale? When did these designs happen? How
can you keep descent with modification from happening in the mean
time? Could the flagellum have evolved when the designer wasn't
looking over 2 billion years ago? Why are there things like simpler
blood clotting systems in other species? How do those species fit
into our proposed lineages? Don't you get the same lineages? In your
scheme fish had to come before amphibians, and amphibians before
reptiles, right? Monkeys had to precede apes. It looks like your
designer used evolution. Why is that? Why is that not one of your
possible options in the face of all the evidence? What is your reason
for rejecting that option?
Your problem is that you don't want to understand nature and the
creation, you just want to support your preexisting beliefs. That is
just stupid and shallow.
Ron Okimoto- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Hard talk
- Next by Date: Re: Re: The Real Origin of Life
- Previous by thread: Re: Difference between humans and apes, a question for creationists.
- Next by thread: Re: Difference between humans and apes, a question for creationists.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
