Creation vs. Evolution

[H2Andy]

Therefore, man did not evolve from monkeys, but both share a common ancestor that was neither monkey nor man.

great book on this subject is The Third Chimpanzee. excellent book by Jared Diamond that sets out the "cutting edge" theories of speciation for primates, but specifically for humans.

want to know something scary? DNA testing (repeated ad nauseam for accuracy) show that humans and monkeys share 93% DNA.

if that seems high, just consider that humans and chimps share at minimum 96% DNA and this number may be as high as 98.5% shared DNA.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5067906/

what does that mean? we're really, really, really closely related to chimps. really, seroiusly, really closely related.

what's scary is that we even have a lot of similar behaviors and social practices in common (we both use tools, we both use sex for more than procreation, we both can exhibit cruelty to our own kind and to other kinds of animals, we both can form "war parties" to use communal violence to the benefit of our group, we both engage in symbolic "language" (though we are really good at it and they are, by our standards, pretty awful) ... etc..)

 

[lamont]

Have you ever heard of the "watch theory"?
If you take a watch apart and mix all the parts in your hand and then throw them up in the air, what are the chances that the watch would land back in your hand with all the parts in place and ticking? How much more intricate isn't the earth than a watch?

Evolution is two processes working together: random mutation and natural selection. Natural selection is not a random process and culls the mutations according to their survivability. Evolution is therefore not a random process (like throwing the pieces of a watch into the air and watching where they land), and is in fact a directed process. The analogy of the blind watchmaker is not a correct interpretation of what evolution actually is, and therefore is not useful in analyzing it. You are just betraying the fact that you don't understand what you're talking about. What you reference is not a theory and not even a conjecture, it is simply a misunderstanding which is designed to mislead.

For a book-length argument on why you're wrong, read:

http://www.amazon.com/-Blind-Watchmaker-Why-/dp/0393315703

Which also goes into the whole issue of why we haven't seen speciation, and the laws of random numbers on timescales substantially longer than a human life.

 

[ClevelandDiver]

great book on this subject is The Third Chimpanzee. excellent book by Jared Diamond that sets out the "cutting edge" theories of speciation for primates, but specifically for humans.

want to know something scary? DNA testing (repeated ad nauseam for accuracy) show that humans and monkeys share 93% DNA.

if that seems high, just consider that humans and chimps share at minimum 96% DNA and this number may be as high as 98.5% shared DNA.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5067906/

what does that mean? we're really, really, really closely related to chimps. really, seroiusly, really closely related.

what's scary is that we even have a lot of similar behaviors and social practices in common (we both use tools, we both use sex for more than procreation, we both can exhibit cruelty to our own kind and to other kinds of animals, we both can form "war parties" to use communal violence to the benefit of our group... etc..)

I originally had written "if man evolved from apes, then why are there still apes", but enlightened minds know that human are really apes, but we put ourselves in a different class to separate us from the "animals". Seeing as we share more DNA with chimps than they share with gorillas or orangatangs, it is a bit elitist to group them with them all together as apes while creating a separate group for ourselves. Thus I used monkeys in my argument to eliminate a subsequent argument on my use of the word ape. I may not be an attorney, but I grew up under the roof of one.

And one more thing.............. pitbull pitbull pitbull.

 

[H2Andy]

dude, relax... hot dang i feel like making a MOTION!



yeah, i think there's no question Homo sapiens belongs with the chimps. we are much more closely related to them than other animals who are in the same group are to each other.

if you wanted to argue DNA similarity, there are species grouped together that are nowhere as near to each other as we are to chimps, and yet they share the same phyla (?) .. whatever the first word of the scientific name is called.

as Diamond points out, the current classification: Homo sapiens, Pan troglodytes (common chimp) and Pan paniscus (pigmy chimp) should be regrouped under the
Homo ruberic, as Homo sapiens, Homo troglodytes, and Homo paniscus

(since Homo sapiens was named first, we get to stay where we are and the chimps get moved to us by the rules of naming species and the such)

 

[Soggy]

if you wanted to argue DNA similarity, there are species grouped together that are nowhere as near to each other as we are to chimps, and yet they share the same phyla (?) .. whatever the first word of the scientific name is called.

Which is part of the reason why they are revising the classification of species.

 

[Jamdiver]

I think you mean 'Genera' andy........

As in Zea mays (corn).
genera - zea
species- may

 

[Hank49]

.

if that seems high, just consider that humans and chimps share at minimum 96% DNA and this number may be as high as 98.5% shared DNA.

)

How much do say, a caucasian from Norway and an Aborigine from Australia share? And can humans produce offspring with chimps? I've always wondered this. If they could, would this be evolution? A new species right away...?

 

[Soggy]

I may be mistaken, but I don't believe that humans and chimps have the same number or compatible chromosomes and wouldn't be able to mate.

How much do say, a caucasian from Norway and an Aborigine from Australia share? And can humans produce offspring with chimps? I've always wondered this. If they could, would this be evolution? A new species right away...?

 

[AlexMDiver]

The problem with creationists is that they unfortunately argue on a non-scientific level which is more accessible to the layman.
The problem is that it is a discussion between belief and fact i.e. apples and oranges.
Some may also believe that the concentration camps in WWII are just fiction. That however does not change that it is a fact that took place. Yet, if you wait 20 thousand years, it may be more difficult to prove this fact to influence an incorrect belief. Beliefs can be changed, evidence and facts in general cannot be changed, only misinterpreted.

You may believe that you are breathing "air molecules" yet you are in fact breathing a mix of mainly oxygen and nitrogen when you dive. You may believe what you want, it does not change proven facts that should be taught regardless of belief.

The first thing has nothing to do with the second. It is a completely pointless discussion and in fact should not be discussed.
Creationists take advantage of the fact that scientific theories change with time. However, only theories change, not observations. In general the observations become more complex and hence a simple theory needs to be adapted. It is clearly observable that the earth is older than what creationists claim. Whatever theory is behind it may be partly inaccurate or over simplified, but what is a fact is that the earth is not 6000 years old, but a lot older.

The earth is older, and was not created in seven days. Organism do evolve and have evolved in the past. There is proof for this.
There may or may not be a God and he may have created the universe, atom, laws of physics etc, but that is up to general belief. All we can do is measure and observe the facts that we see in our reality. One thing "God" gave humans is to be able to reason logically and deduce conclusions from observed facts. This distinguishes us from many/most animals. Unfortunately, many creationists often do not share this ability.

 

[AlexMDiver]

I remember from somewhere that men share nearly the same percentage of identical DNA with gorillas as they do with women.
I will try and find a reference for this.