From the Smithsonian: We and the chimpanzees “are one”:
Geneticists have come up with a variety of ways of calculating the percentages, which give different impressions about how similar chimpanzees and humans are. The 1.2% chimp-human distinction, for example, involves a measurement of only substitutions in the base building blocks of those genes that chimpanzees and humans share. A comparison of the entire genome, however, indicates that segments of DNA have also been deleted, duplicated over and over, or inserted from one part of the genome into another. When these differences are counted, there is an additional 4 to 5% distinction between the human and chimpanzee genomes.
No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one. The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached. The human evolutionary tree is embedded within the great apes.
“What does it mean to be humans” at Smithsonian Museum of Natural History
Except, we’re not “one”. The wall has not “been breached.” So far as anyone can tell, it is not even breachable.
Nobody thinks chimpanzees are the same as humans except a few researchers who may have spent too long in the bush.
“Spent too long in the bush”? As a child, I (O’Leary for News) spent some years in a northern wilderness, where we had occasion to use the expression “bushed.” It meant that a person had gone mad living alone in the wilderness.
One manifestation of this madness is believing that a nearby animal is like a human being. The mood is captured in a British Isles poem in which a lighthouse repairman comes to think that way about a seal.
Similarly, Canadian author Farley Mowat (1921–2014) recounts in Never Cry Wolf that, after spending a great deal of time among wolves, he began to think of them as people. In both these stories, friends noticed the odd behaviour and got the guy out of there. As I recall, bushed people in the far northern community in which I lived were generally sent south by bushplane to see a psychiatrist before something really crazy happened.
None of this silliness about “we are one” has anything to do with protecting chimpanzees or ensuring their humane treatment. That’s done by enforcing legal protection, backed up by education on humane principles, not by airing counterfactual theories.
If only the time and energy wasted on claiming that chimps are just like humans had been spent on rescuing chimps from awful conditions in labs and from the crackpots who try to make them into people and render them unfit for chimp life). The two have tended to coincide, all too often.
But meanwhile, what becomes of sciences that solemnly assert absurdities like “the wall… has been breached ,” commanding the assent of all? Certainly not credibility.
See also: Why can’t we make apes behave like people? A history of doomed recent efforts.
em>Further reading, courtesy Michael Egnor: Apes can be generous Are they just like humans then?
Can animals reason? My challenge to Jeffrey Shallit
and
University fires philosophy prof, hires chimpanzee to teach, research: A light-hearted look at what would happen if we really thought that unreason is better than reason
Follow UD News at Twitter!
I think you misread what they are saying.
“humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one.” — He’s not saying that we’re a chimpanzee, he’s saying that we’re a species of great ape, like the chimpanzees and gorillas. To say that we’re a mammal, like dogs, is not the same as saying that we’re dogs.
I’m not exactly sure I’m reading it the way you are but it really does seem like he’s trying to defend the fact we are super closely related disputes the fact that the more we calculated our genomes the further unrelated we become
Remember it wasn’t too long ago that we were 99% related and then it became 98% related and that number just keeps getting lower and lower the more we find out about our actual genomes, now it’s 5% less so we’re at 95% Related
And this entire article seems to read that we are one with the great apes despite the fact that that number keeps getting further and further away why was this piece not made when it said we were at 99% related why were those comments not made then but they’re certainly being made now that we are becoming less related each time we check our work
I would do not doubt that that number is going to continue to grow the more we find out about the genome
But related to great apes are not our morphology is quite a bit different from theirs and if it wasn’t we’d be living side-by-side with them on a day-to-day basis
The number hasn’t changed at all, it’s just different if you calculate it from single nucleotide differences or also include deletions/insertions in both species. The fact we are great apes doesn’t depend on what the number is, it’s just a taxonomic fact. Because chimps are more closely related to us than they are to organs there is no natural group that includes the other apes but not humans.
Hmm, no references in the article.
Anyways their numbers are biased to put it mildly,
Further notes:
Of humorous note, a Darwinist, who studied the methodology of how one of the more famous 98.5% Chimp-Human DNA similarity comparisons was derived, stated that the 98.5% comparison “needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years”,,,
AaronS1978,
The differences in the 98-99% figure and the 95-96% figure depends on whether you are only comparing the protein encoding portions of the DNA, or if you are comparing the entire genome and including DNA duplications, etc. But as the article states, however one does the comparisons, humans are genetically closer to chimpanzees than chimpanzees are to gorillas.
AaronS1978, that website is garbage propaganda. GUN’s claim that we are “we’re a species of great ape” is further garbage propaganda.
mimus:
No, it isn’t any type of fact. There isn’t any known mechanism that can produce an upright biped starting with populations of knuckle-walkers.
Of related humorous interest, so great are the anatomical differences between humans and chimps that a Darwinist, (since, surprisingly, pigs are anatomically closer to humans than chimps are), actually proposed that a chimp and pig mated with each other and that is what ultimately gave rise to humans:
Moreover, Physorg published a subsequent article, (since the preceding article badly upset many Darwinists), showing that the pig-chimp hybrid theory for human origins was much harder to shoot down than many Darwinists had first supposed it would be since “he found that it was always humans who were similar to pigs with respect to these traits.”
I don’t think you will ever hear a Darwinist on UD ever try to claim that ““we’re a species of great pig” 🙂 ,,, LOL
Kind of blows a hole in their entire worldview,,, ha ha ha 🙂
goodusername at 1, you outdo yourself. Compare:
“humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one.”
with
“dogs are not only related to the cats – they are one.”
No, they’re not. And – this is my point – if someone insisted re dogs and cats that “they are one,” I would find myself asking why that person needed to believe such a thing. I think more such questions should be directed at contemporary science writers.
News,
You are still missing the point. Member of a taxonomic group are necessarily more closely reletaded to each other than they are to creatues not in that group. Chimps are more closely related to humans than they are to orangs or gorillas. So, if great apes include chimps gorillas and orangs then it has to include humans. In other words, if there is such as thing as a “great ape” then humans are one. This is an inescapable fact, and not some rhetorical device used to upset certain American conservatives.
News,
Yes, do compare the two statements – notice how they are very different. They are not analogous because the second statement is talking about two different species. The first statement is talking about a species and a GROUP. If you wanted to make a statement analogous to the first statement, it would go like this: “dogs are not only related to mammals – they are one.”
Another analogous statement would be “we are not only related to primates – we are one.” A statement that would NOT be analogous would be: “we are not only related to chimpanzees – we are one.” Which is not at all what they’re saying.
I apologize it looks like I miss read that
goodusername and mimus above: Your defense of the Smithsonian is well-meant. However:
“No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: humans, chimpanzees, and bonobos are more closely related to one another than either is to gorillas or any other primate. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one.”
Now:
No matter how the calculation is done, the big point still holds: dogs, coyotes, and cats are more closely related to one another than either is to squirrels or any other mammals. From the perspective of this powerful test of biological kinship, dogs are not only related to the coyotes – they are one.
But the Smithsonian probably wouldn’t say that. Speciation is the grand claim of Darwinian theories of evolution.
In any event, the human mind puts humans in a different category in principle. Those who will not acknowledge that are dangerous even if they – and we – don’t recognize it.
Aaron1978, you didn’t misread it. Some do not want to acknowledge what it says and what it means.
I don’t how this could be made any clearer to you, so I guess I give up.
Given DNA identical in the 90th percentile yet the vast differences between the two species that share it, the obvious conclusion is that DNA isn’t nearly as important to biology as previously hypothesized. A blueprint which cannot account for the differences between a cathedral and a shack isn’t much of a blueprint.
bornagain77 @ 4
In your 3rd block quote it mentions Sibley and Ahlquist who produced the 98% similarity estimate.
Jon Ahlquist featured recently in a CMI article “Convert to Creation: Margaret Wieland interviews bird expert and former renowned evolutionist Dr Jon Ahlquist “, https://creation.com/jon-ahlquist
The ONLY way chimps are related to humans is via a Common Design. And there still isn’t a mechanism that can transform populations of knuckle-walkers into upright bipeds. So thoughts of Common Descent are untestable and as such not part of science.
“we are one”
This is just another nonsensical non-scientific proclamation from an air-headed Evolutionist.
Statements like these are a dime-a-dozen from the Evolutionist crowd.
This is just one more brick in the Great Wall of why Evolutionists cannot be taken seriously.
Happy Monday
Andrew
Here are a few more factoids that don’t bode well for those who desperately want to be kissing cousins with chimps,, Humans are far more genetically unique from one another that was presupposed by the ‘gene-centric’ assumption of Darwinists
Moreover, as was pointed out in post 4, the genetic similarity numbers quoted in the Smithsonian article are found to be highly questionable and most likely to be tainted by Darwinian bias, (in fact, as was also pointed out in post 4, the most trustworthy numbers are turning out to be around 85%), it is also interesting to point out that the fossil record is also found to be highly questionable and most likely to be tainted by Darwinian bias.
It is also interesting to point out that when we step away from the highly questionable and, apparently, biased evidence for human evolution that is put forth by Darwinists, then both the genetic and the fossil evidence reveal a very different story than the story that Darwinists want to be told.
As Phillip Johnson noted, there is something very strange about how Darwinists interpret the overall fossil record,
Of course we all have our own biases, but I think it is more than fair to say that Darwinists have clearly let their own biases completely cloud their judgement to the point of them being completely blind in terms of fairly and objectively assessing the evidence,
i.e. When the overall body of fossil and genetic evidence contradicts the already highly questionable fossil and genetic evidence for human evolution that is put forth by Darwinists, then it is, of course, the already highly questionable fossil and genetic evidence for human evolution that should be completely reassessed to see where it went wrong.
From what I can tell as a confirmed layman, DNA appears to be acting more like a database than a blueprint (IOW an informational resource rather than a program). It’s understandable that biologists would resist losing their mechanistic analogy to an informational one, even in the midst of the Information Age, if in doing so the program (formerly known as “the blueprint”) by which an organism constructs itself actually resides somewhere as yet unknown.
News,
I haven’t given a defense of the Smithsonian; I’m merely trying to explain what they are saying.
Well, yeah, obviously they wouldn’t say that. But I’m confused as to why are you bothering to point that out? Hopefully, if you read post #11, you understand why they wouldn’t say that. Dogs and coyotes are both species.
Dogs, coyotes, and cats are indeed more related to each other than they are to squirrels. Dogs, coyotes, and cats thus all belong to carnivora, while the squirrels are left out. Thus a statement analogous to the Smithsonian statement would be: “dogs are not only related to the Carnivora – they are one.”
Dogs and coyotes are both mammals, Dogs and coyotes are both carnivora. That doesn’t mean that dogs are coyotes, or cats, or any other carnivoran species.
Apparently
Aarceng at 16, thanks for the link. Too funny, even the guy behind the very questionable and misleading 98.5% figure does not believe Darwinian evolution to be true.
And again to repeat, a Darwinist, who studied the methodology of how one of the more famous 98.5% Chimp-Human DNA similarity comparisons was derived, (i.e. Ahlquist and Sibley), stated that the 98.5% comparison “needs to be treated like nuclear waste: bury it safely and forget about it for a million years”,,,
An analogy may help to understand why chimps and humans can have 95% (or whatever) the same DNA, yet be so different. Consider buildings: you can start with a pile of bricks, a pile of lumber, some steel pieces, roofing materials, floor tiles, windows, doors, wiring, paint, etc., and then make two totally different buildings using these materials; one a small house and the other a library or school. The house and school are quite different, although they might use the same materials
The genes in DNA mostly describe how to make proteins or building materials. The remaining 5% (at least) tells you how to put those materials together one way or other. Thus, most animals share a significant number or genes for bones, blood, various cell types, and cell internal components that are much the same (or very similar) in all animals. It’s like a LEGO set, fifty or more different types of building block from which you can build whatever you like.
h, Mimus and goodusername above, I am beginning to see what you mean – what a clever piece of grammatical equivocation the Smithsonian indulges in!
” humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one.”
This is capable of two different interpretations:
humans are not only related to the great apes – [they and] we are one. [one indivisible group]
or
humans are not only related to the great apes – we are one [we are one great ape].
I supposed they meant the first and you supposed they meant the second – that we are all one great ape. Perhaps they did. But then what does that mean? “The DNA evidence leaves us with one of the greatest surprises in biology: the wall between human, on the one hand, and ape or animal, on the other, has been breached.”
In the first place, to the Smithsonian crowd, that wouldn’t be a “surprise” at all, They’ve been talking the idea up since forever, But what barrier has been breached? If anything, the fact that humans and chimpanzees have such similar genetics and are so vastly different should make us wonder how much genetics matters in these things.
News,
Close – I’d phrase it as that humans are *one* of the species of great ape, not that we are somehow all one great ape.
It’s similar to how some people might mistakenly say that since dogs are related to wolves, that therefore “dogs are related to carnivora”. Well, that’s true, kind of, but it gives the impression that dogs left carnivora, and so it’s worth pointing out that dogs still are one. I.e., dogs are one of the species of carnivora.
(I should point out that I’m not really in full agreement with the Smithsonian statement. I’m not personally opposed to informal, paraphyletic groups. Paraphyletic groups are groups that exclude members who are actually more closely related to certain members than the members are to each other. I agree that there are important ways in which chimps and gorillas are more similar to each other than we are to chimps, even though humans and chimps are indeed closer relatives than chimps are to gorillas. Thus I don’t mind there being a term for chimps, gorillas, and orangutans that excludes humans. Another example of a paraphyletic group is “fish.” Humans are more closely related to trout than trout are to lamprey, but I don’t mind people calling trout and lamprey “fish” but excluding humans, as trout and lamprey have a rather “fishy” quality that humans lack. Thus “fish” is not a formal taxonomic group. But while not opposed to such groups, as an informal designation, it is fascinating to learn, IMO, that such groups are indeed paraphyletic. Some are philosophically opposed to such groups, which is why some will argue that humans are fish.)
No. It’s like saying “squares are not only like rectangles, they are one”. If the group “great apes” exists is necessarily includes us. That’s all there is to it.
The great apes are not “indivisible”, but it you want to divide the group it cant be {(orangs, gorillas, chimps)(humans)}, as you seem to wish, because chimps are more close to humans that gorillas. The taxonomically valid divisions are
{ (organs) (gorillas, chimps, humans)}
{ (organs) (gorillas) (chimps, humans)}
{ (organs) (gorillas) (chimps) (humans)}
This has to be one of the strangest disagreents I have read here. Maybe this will put it in context.
We commonly classify the tiger, lion, jaguar, leopard, and snow leopard as the “big cats”. Similarily, we commonly classify the gorilla, chimpanzee, orangutan and humans as the “great apes”. Some humans get all bent out of shape about this, presumably due to some misplaced idea about human exceptionalism. Does anyone really think that the snow leopard gets all pissed off being lumped in with those other cats who can’t even purr?
mimus:
Nonsense. We are only in that group to the willfully ignorant people on an agenda. We are NOT knuckle-walkers. We are NOT quadrupeds.
goodusername:
I would say that is question-begging nonsense
Brother Brian:
And yet the only people to do so think that we evolved from them, albeit without any way to test the claim. So THAT is the problem.
Because it is question-begging nonsense.
You have to be daft to think that they even know or care
A Darwinist recently admitted that, according to Darwinian assumptions, the concept of what a species truly is, the most important concept in all of biology, is a complete mystery:
Well I guess that he is happy that he has no clue how to define what a species truly is just long as humans are, contrary to Christian presuppositions, “not special or privileged in the grand scheme of things”.
Of course others of us who are not so enamored with the idea of being so easily classified alongside pond scum,,,,
,,,and who also expect to have a little more scientific rigor from a supposed scientific theory that purports to explain, of all things, ‘The Origin of Species’ itself, might find his flippant dismissal of the Darwinian ability to define what a species truly is to be a superficial dismissal of his self-admitted very serious shortcoming within his Darwinian framework.
And indeed, this inability for Darwinists to define what a species truly is within the Darwinian framework gives a glimpse into a irredeemable, and catastrophic, defect within the Darwinist’s reductive materialistic framework:
Darwinists ultimately seek to ‘scientifically’ explain everything in materialistic terms. i.e. Reductive materialism. And yet, if something is not composed of particles or does not have physical properties (e.g., mass, energy, orientation, position, etc), it is abstract, i.e., spiritual. Numbers, mathematics, logic, truth, distance, time, beauty, ugliness, species, person, information, etc.. etc.. all fall into that category of being abstract. It is amazing how many things fall into that ‘abstract’ category even though most of us, including scientists, (“scientists” also happens to be an abstract term itself), swear they exist physically.
The following article is good for explaining exactly why Darwinists will never be able to give an adequate account of what a species truly is
This inability of Darwinists to ground abstract concepts in their reductive materialistic worldview is, as mentioned previously. catastrophic to Darwinian evolution as a scientific worldview. One of the main reasons this failure to ground abstract concepts is catastrophic to Darwinian evolution as a scientific worldview is that mathematics itself, (the very backbone of all science, engineering and technology), is an abstract concept that can find no basis within the reductive materialism of Darwinian evolution.
Of supplemental note: The following video goes over several lines of scientific evidence that reveal that humans are not nearly as inconsequential in this universe, and on this earth, as Darwinists would, apparently, prefer to for us to believe.
BA77
A species is just the result of humans trying to slot organisms into a strict, well defined, classification system. Evolutionary theory predicts that doing so is not possible.
Humans are mammals. No argument. Humans are primates. Again, no argument. But when we follow basic cladistics and taxonomy to say that we fit best with the great apes (chimps, gorillas and orangutans) some people get all bent out of shape.
Brother Brian:
Which is why evolution does not predict a nested hierarchy. A nested hierarchy requires ” a strict, well defined, classification system”.
Because we do NOT fit with the great apes. We are upright bipeds. There are many glaring physical DIFFERENCES between humans and the great apes.
It’s as if our resident evos are blind or willfully ignorant.
Brother Brian, in his own way, honestly concedes that his Darwinian framework cannot classify what a species truly is
And yet even though he honestly concedes that there is no rigorous way for him to rigorously classify organisms within the reductive materialism of his Darwinian worldview, he still, none-the-less, wants to reach over into the Theistic worldview and ‘borrow’ some ‘abstract’ scheme for classifying organisms. He, of course, prefers to subjectively classify humans with great apes. Indeed that is his primary motivation for ‘borrowing’ some abstract scheme of classification. BB could care less about the actual science behind the matter. And although he listed no rigorous criteria for classifying apes with humans, and indeed, as he already conceded, he can have no rigorous criteria for doing so within his Darwinian worldview, He did so anyway. This is a shining example of intellectual dishonesty,,, a blatant contradiction in logic all within the space of the few sentences of BB’s post. As he himself conceded, the reductive materialism of his Darwinian worldview simply cannot ground the ‘immaterial’ abstract concept of species.
It gets worse for BB and other Darwinian materialists.
To make this dilemma even more devastating to the Darwinian materialist, it turns out that atoms themselves are not the solid indivisible concrete particles, as they were originally envisioned to be by materialists, but it turns out that the descriptions we now use to describe atoms themselves, the further down we go, dissolve into “abstract conceptual tools for describing nature, which themselves seem to lack any real, concrete essence.,,,”
In fact, according to quantum theory, the most fundamental ‘stuff’ of the world is not even matter or energy, (as Darwinian materialists presuppose) but is immaterial information itself
Thus, in irony of ironies, not even the material particles themselves turn to be are ‘real’ and concrete, (on the materialistic definition of what is ‘real’ and concrete), but turn out to be “abstract” immaterial information.
This puts the die-hard materialist in quite the conundrum because, as Bernardo Kastrup further explains, to make sense of this conundrum of a non-material world of pure abstractions we must ultimately appeal to an immaterial mind. i.e. we must ultimately appeal to God!
Or to put it much more simply, as Physics professor Richard Conn Henry put it at the end of the following article, “The Universe is immaterial — mental and spiritual. Live, and enjoy.”
Of supplemental note:
The Darwinian materialist, in his rejection of God, simply has no anchor for reality to grab onto:
As I have pointed out several times now, assuming Naturalism instead of Theism as the worldview on which all of science is based leads to the catastrophic epistemological failure of science itself.
Thus, although the Darwinist may firmly believes he is on the terra firma of science (in his appeal, even demand, for methodological naturalism), the fact of the matter is that, when examining the details of his materialistic/naturalistic worldview, it is found that Darwinists/Atheists are adrift in an ocean of fantasy and imagination with no discernible anchor for reality to grab on to.
It would be hard to fathom a worldview more antagonistic to modern science than Atheistic materialism and/or methodological naturalism have turned out to be.
And, strangely, no evolutionist claims that you can define what a species truly is. The concept of species long predates Darwin. It stems from the human “need” to classify everything we see. Evolution, however, predicts that this will not always be possible. A prediction that has proven to be true. Only creationists think this is a problem for evolution.
The bigger question is why a designed system wouldn’t make the distinctions between species clearer than they actually are.
BB is having trouble telling kinds of species apart from each other.
“The bigger question is why a designed system wouldn’t make the distinctions between species clearer than they actually are.”
Ha Ha Ha,, so you have trouble telling a dog from a cat? Or a fish from a bird? Or a human from an ape? If so, in case of the later, we are the ones who build and visit zoos, we do not live in them. Hope that helps you in sorting out your confusion.
Nope. But what about dogs from wolves? Wolves from coyotes? Coywolves from coyotes and wolves?
What’s to distinguish? Humans are different but still amongst the same group as chimps, gorillas and orangoutangs. Humans developed the system of classification and the rules used for it. These were based on measures that are as objective as are possible given the circumstances. And based on these rules, we are one of the great apes. If you don’t like it, propose a different classification system. Perhaps introduce a “God promised we were special” rule.
Foxes. That’s the stumper. Unlike dogs/wolves/coyotes the many fox species are truly separate species with unique numbers of chromosomes. They may look like one kind, but in terms of chromosomes they most definitely splintered into many. Doesn’t really fit the YEC model
R7, very interesting. I wasn’t aware of this. Does this mean we have to stop calling some of them foxes? 🙂
rhampton7- The Creation model- the YEC model- has God’s original populations containing the information and mechanisms required to fill available niches.
Brother Brian:
What about them? Clearly we can tell them apart- well maybe you can’t.
Plenty. Humans are upright bipeds. Apes, including chimps, are not. And that alone requires different muscles and attachment points.
With humans the spine connects to the head in a different position than with apes. The rib cage is different.
Only if you are blind or willfully ignorant.
The system is fine. The morons running it are the problem.
You have to be desperate and on an agenda to group humans with apes.
Brother Brian:
What page is that on?
Talk about making stuff up on the fly…
Of related note:
To repeat, the main problem for Darwinists is that they have no way to demarcate what a species truly is. Or to demarcate when one species ends and another species begins. On a Darwinian view, there should be one long continuum of the blending together of characteristics. Yet this is not what we have, when we see a dog kind we immediately recognize it as belonging to the dog kind. There is no confusion on our part when we see a dog kind as to perhaps this dog we are looking is a cat, or perhaps it is a squirrel, or perhaps a rodent. But Darwin predicts there should be such a blending together of characteristics that would produce such confusion on our part. There is simply no way within the Darwinian scheme of things to tell when one kind of species ends and another kind of species begins. To repeat,,,
Moreover, when we look at the fossil record, we do not see the morphing of one kind of species into another kind of species. On the contrary, when a ‘kind’ of species appears in the fossil record it does so abruptly, with rapid diversification and then long term stability following afterwards.
In fact, the fossil record is upside down from what Darwin predicted:
And, if evolutionary theory is correct, we wouldn’t expect to be able to. The fact that the dividing line between species is often fuzzy is just more support for evolution. Why opponents of evolution are always harping in this is a mystery to me.
“And, if evolutionary theory is correct, we wouldn’t expect to be able to.”
Brother Brian,
If you can’t demarcate what a species is, then there is no such thing as speciation, which is what evolution is supposed to be.
You truly have some formidably thick mental blocks barricading your brain, don’t you?
Andrew
“The fact that the dividing line between species is often fuzzy is just more support for evolution.”
The confusion, (with a lot of help from Darwinian propaganda that you gulp down as if it is Gatorade), is all in your own imagination.
I’ve already commented on the very unDarwinian pattern revealed in the overall fossil record. (A fact which you ignored), so to go on,,,
Dr. Arthur Jones, who did his Ph.D. thesis in biology on cichlids, (which is a popular false Icon of evolution), comments on the distinctiveness of cichlids
As well, Darwinists admit that they have no last common ancestor (LCA) between humans and apes,
This is a very curious gap in the fossil record for Darwinists to admit to. since, as Phillip Johnson noted,,,
Likewise, Lucy, (another popular false Icon of evolution), fails to live up to its popular billing as the supposedly definitive transitional fossil between humans and apes:
Here is the fraudulent reconstruction of Lucy displayed by Darwinists
Here is the anatomically correct reconstruction of Lucy
Other ‘Lucy’ fossils have been found since the ‘powersaw incident’ that show that Lucy could not have possibly walked upright.
As to other less well known supposedly transitional fossils between us and apes, none of those supposedly transitional fossils live up to their billing either,
To repeat BB, the confusion, (with a lot of help from Darwinian propaganda that you gulp down as if it is Gatorade), is all in your own imagination.
Brother Brian:
Except that Intelligent Design is NOT anti-evolution. Clearly Brian is happy to be willfully ignorant.
At what moment does night become day? If the line between night and day is fuzzy then surely there can be no such thing as day-night cycle. heliocentrsts are so thick…
Mimi, thanks for the laugh. The logic of a couple of the commenters makes me cringe. But I should step back and realize that they are doing the best they can. Even if their best isn’t very good.
Mimus, But alas, there is never is a definitive day or night in the Darwinian scheme of things, only a continual dimension of imagination. A dimension we call The Twilight Zone. 🙂
To repeat:
BB states: “The logic of a couple of the commenters makes me cringe.”
Hmmm, OH REALLY??? And please do tell how one might be able to derive logic from your atheistic materialism in the first place:
This following site is an easy to use, and understand, interactive website that takes the user through what is termed ‘Presuppositional apologetics’. The website clearly shows that our use of the laws of logic cannot be accounted for unless we believe in God who guarantees our perceptions and reasoning are trustworthy in the first place.
Further notes:
Verse and quote:
mimus:
That doesn’t follow. And it exposes your desperation.
“Speciation is a lineage-splitting event that produces two or more separate species”- UCB So given that A) our definition of species is arbitrary and B) we expect smooth blending of characteristics given gradual change, the concept of speciation is fool’s gold.
Brother Brian:
You and mimus- yes, I agree that neither of you understand the concept of logic. Only a total lack of logic says that humans are great apes.
And that is more than enough to prove that you are clueless.
And yet it is much, much better than anything you have been able to muster.
ET,
Does any scientist disagrre that, say, lions are tigers are distinct species that shared a common ancstor ~5-10 million years ago? Once lineages have spent a long time apart they become more distinct and easier to diagnose. We only have difficulties defining species in the fuzzy bits early on in the speciation process. Which, again, is whay we’d expect if species emerge over time from common ancestors, not what you’d expect if they were created ex nihlo
mimus:
Maybe. I’ve seen a liger. Does any scientist have a testable mechanism that can produce said alleged common ancestor? No.
And mimus, you are confused. Creation does NOT argue for the fixity of species. ID definitely doesn’t.
Heterozygosity. For example, with the Creation model the original cat population(s) would have had a high degree of heterozygosity, along with the information and ability required:
The Created Kinds evolved and adapted. The extant species emerged over time from common ancestors. Instead of a single tree, Creation has an orchard.
I wonder why this commenter automatically thought I was referring to him? Hmmm.
Brother Brian proves that logic and reasoning are not its forte. There isn’t anything in bornagain77’s response that says he thought Brian was referring to him.
Talk about lost and desperate.
BB, My criticism of the inability of your materialistic worldview to ground logic in the first place applies no matter who the comment was directed at.
If you were as astute at logic, as you would like to believe yourself to be, you would have immediately realized that fact.
Some ‘commenters’ may even ‘cringe’ that you missed such an obvious point in logic.
Mimus claims that “We only have difficulties defining species in the fuzzy bits early on in the speciation process.”
And yet, as was already pointed out in post 44, the fossil record is upside down from what Darwin predicted. Thus we can readily see that Hybridization is only possible between the sub-species of the originally created kind. Which is exactly what we would expect from a ‘top down’ creation perspective.
Typical of Darwinists, Mimus tries to dishonestly use evidence that properly belongs to the creation model as confirming evidence for Darwinism.
Of related note, like the ‘upside down’ fossil record, (post 44), the genetic evidence is also of no help to Darwinists:
Asauber @ 46
Edmund Burke commented on that a few years ago:
Seversky- repeating stupidity doesn’t make it a valid argument.
Seversky’s response at 63 (to the scientific fact that it is impossible, within the premises of Darwinian materialism, to rigorously demarcate what a species is), is to recite a poetic reflection from Edmund Burke?
Honest people, who were concerned with maintaining integrity within their beliefs, would rightly reject Darwinism as the supposed scientific theory that can explain the ‘origin of species’ since it can’t even define the primary object of what it is suppose to try to explain in the first place, i.e. a species.. But alas, for a Darwinist such as Seversky, such a catastrophic failure within the foundational premises of his worldview is apparently cause for poetic musing instead of serious reevaluation and rejection of the worldview that forced such insanity on him in the first place.
ET
My irony meter just blew up. Someone should warn us about this possibility.
Too bad you do not have a ‘insane worldview’ meter. You would not be an atheistic materialist if you did.
Brother Brian:
Your cowardice is still intact.
Brother Brian survived a brain-eating amoeba infection by starving the invaders to death. 😎