Creationism vs. Evolution

I'm no chimp, nor is my father, or his father, or his father, and nor is my son...

 

oh that's right, been awhile, I forgot.

I had to quote that so you couldn't change it, thanks for helping me prove my point.


great to see newbies contribute to the C&E thread. I'm out for tonight, g'night all.

 

Different races between humans have very little percentage in their DNA that makes them different. From a study of 70 people there is a <7% and as the sample space gets bigger then that percentage goes down. From what you stated because 2 things seem related doesn't mean they are does that mean that because different races of people are different doesn't mean we are necessarily the same? I know that is kind of absurd since we all fall under the same Homo Sapien but in a chart (I will provide the link later my backpack is not in my room) we are not that far off from specifically chimps.

 

The problem is one of complexity and time. 4 billion years seems like a long time but when you add in complexity and a destructive environment, 4 billion years is extremely short. Even a simple non-living virus has over 4000 DNA building blocks which must be in a certain order to produce the virus. It's also not enough to have amino acids (of which the material on the comet was just a precursor to amino acids). You also have to have the right type and mix for life. Amino acids have been produced in a laboratory simulating earth's early atmosphere and lightning (Miller's Experiment) but the problem is you have to remove the amino acids from the mix otherwise they'll be destroyed by the very environment that created them. Without oxygen, you'll have nothing to protect them from ultra-violet light (which also destroys them) but if you add oxygen to the mix, the reaction doesn't work anymore. So in my opinion, it is still far-fetched.

 

I have to agree here. Being exposed to something toxic, radiation, and all that jazz is simply a mutation. An evolution is more like not having a thumb then as the next generation comes and has thumbs because those without thumbs couldn't work with the environment while the ones with thumbs evolved to have thumbs so that they may continue to live in that environment. I know it's a terrible description but I'm tired.

You both have good points. Yes we are closely related to chimps with a huge amount percentage wise in DNA and yes there is that little portion left that makes humans humans. Neither one of you is right nor wrong

 

I almost didn't bother to post here, mainly because this is an argument nobody can ever win. Evolution is a theory because it CAN'T be proven, to prove it somebody would have to be alive for a million or so years and document all the changes they personally observed. BUT....it is a theory backed with a hell of a lot of evidence. Your statement is probably the most stereotypical misunderstanding of evolution. Darwin's original book never once stated that man evolved from apes, he simply said that at one point in history we had a common ancestor. You talk about adapt and evolve like they are 2 different things.....but adapting IS evolving. That's why some animals have become extinct while others are still here, the one's who died couldn't adapt to a changing environment. A perfect example of this are whales, at one time they had 4 legs and walked, and they still have vestigial rear legs. The fossil record clearly illustrates several stages of changes in whales and their ancestors. I hate to tell you this, but evolution is still occurring. In another 1 million years our planet as we know it won't exist, its a simple fact that things change with time. Who knows, humans may not even make it that long, but if we do we sure won't be exactly like what we are like right now. In it's most basic form, evolution is just continuous very small, very minute changes over very large amounts of time. And finally, just to set the record straight, the pope and the catholic church have never once said they don't believe in evolution. Trust me, I was a biology teacher in a catholic school. The official word, at least as far as catholics go, is that basically God could have put the mechanics in motion and then stepped back and allowed things to "evolve" on their own. Believe whatever you want to believe, but all I ask is that people don't make things up or try to change facts. I know there are some who don't believe dinosaurs ever walked the earth, that those bones were buried by "somebody" as some sort of trick or joke. OK, I need to chill out now, this is just one of those topics that I see that gets me riled up. Spend some time researching some of the info I just posted before you flame me...

 

My only point is that just because two things seem related, that doesn't mean they are. The entire human race's DNA is easily distinguishable from an apes. There is statistical variation between any two individuals but as compared to the human race as a whole, the variation is not great. The mouse as a group shares 97.5% of our DNA. It was stated that chimps as a group share 96-98% of our genes as proof that we evolved from apes. Using that logic, I'm just as correct in saying that we're direct decendants of mice. However that's viewed as absurd because we don't look like mice. We share similar physical features with apes so they assume we are descended from apes. Based on DNA evidence, the evidence for ancestry is just as conclusive for saying there's a direct mouse/human decendance. So we're not really basing the conclusion of a human/ape decendance on DNA evidence, we're basing it on the fact that we look similar.

 

Not arguing with anybody, but I really want this point to stand out, because since Darwin published "....Origin of Species" people have been consistently getting the theory wrong. "Common ancestry" and "descending from...." are completely different. Saying we "descended from apes" implies that there were apes and they somehow changed into us. Saying apes and us at one time in history had a common ancestor implies exactly that, at some far distant past there was some type of common ancestor that very slowly changed into many different species. This common ancestry is why we have the same exact DNA building blocks as a snail or a protist or a monkey, all life started with the same "blocks". So yes, science IS partly basing their theory on DNA. The point is that very small difference in DNA code is enough to make very LARGE changes.

 

The link between apes and man is commonly referred to as an ape-like ancestor or primate. I don't think it's a misunderstanding on our part.
http://www.mnsu.edu/emuseum/biology/humanevolution/humevol.html
http://www.allaboutscience.org/evolution-of-man.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolution-fact.html

 

I agree that direct translations are extremely difficult. Much more so when you play "telephone" and go Greek to Latin to English, etc.

But they are RE-WRITTEN. From Wikipedia itself: "Further, the King gave the translators instructions designed to guarantee that the new version would conform to the ecclesiology of the Church of England. Certain Greek and Hebrew words were to be translated in a manner that reflected the traditional usage of the church. For example, old ecclesiastical words such as the word "church" were to be retained and not to be translated as "congregation". The new translation would reflect the episcopal structure of the Church of England and traditional beliefs about ordained clergy."

Other fairly reputable sources confirm my point - that certain Bibles have been manipulated for gain of the re-writer. For example: http://www.mediahistory.umn.edu/archive/kingJames.html
The Old Testament was based upon the same Masoretic text as the previous versions, However, there were no ancient Greek manuscripts for the New Testament until 1628. They didn't have the advantage of using the most accurate resources.

So, it seems, that the translators were basing their works on re-writes (or "translations") of others. So, you're just repeating the errors, and compounding them. Plus, apparently there have been multiple revisions, which let's face it, mean that there WERE errors. So, yeah, it's been re-written, numerous times.

Time magazine (not the most official of sources, I admit) had a great article a few years back about other biblical texts that were banned by the early catholic church, essentially for failure to conform to the message they wanted to have. Which leads me to conclude that even from a start, some cherry-picking was happening in putting together a collection of works that eventually became the Bible we know today.

 

You didn't post the link to the Wikipedia source so it's sources for the quotes could be checked.

As far as not having an early translation of the New Testament text, the Latin Vulgate dates to 5th century AD.

I'm not arguing that a particular translation of the original text is without error nor have I ever said the King James was a perfect translation. As for the later versions, they were corrections against what the source text actually said, not a re-translation of the King James Bible.

An example of a re-translation of another translation is the Living Bible (paraphrase). It's based off the American Standard Version, which is itself a more literal translation. The Living Bible is a re-translation of a translation.

 

actually since 95% of scientists buy the theory, they claim it as scientific fact unless someone comes along and disproves it.

 

Evolution in the traditional scientific sense doesn't stand up to other scientific principles such as biogenesis which states that life must be produced by life. If you believe that humans evolved from apes who evolved from one cell organisms who evolved from what? Dirt? Dirt is not alive and hence biogenesis is violated. Do I believe that God created humans? Yea. Do I believe every single word written in the bible? Hell no. The bible is full of mistranslations, fairy tales, contradictions and plain stupid crap like stoning your wife if she's not a virgin on your wedding day. Human life has to come from some other form of life if you believe in biogenesis which is scientific. That other "life" is God as far our tiny human intellects can conceive of Him. Other scientists like quantum physicists have studied matter for decades and all reach the same conclusion: that you cannot have a universe without an intelligent mind behind it. Evolution is a perfectly acceptable idea but I still believe God was behind it. It makes more sense to me then God creating Adam and Eve out of the dirt and having all the shit wrong with the world be because of a talking snake....

 

I understand that and that's the point of it all. It's a fact because it has yet to be disproven through their studies as well as others. Now somehow later on down the line if it is disproven then it's false and we move on.

 

So does this mean you agree that apes and humans had a common ancestor? If so, what's the argument? I guess I'm missing your point, or I'm confused about which side of the argument you're on.

 

Even in your quote you did not add the word 'blindly' between the letter 'u' and the word 'follow'. It's not fair to make behind the scene assumptions.

I guess my point would be this, if you proved yourself as a proficient outdoorsman that could survive in the wild under all conditions, I would then follow you to the wilderness and not worry about surviving. At this point of following you, would that be called following you blindly?

which happens often

 

My point is in reponse to your criticism over my use of the term ape. It's because evolutionists use it frequently when talking about the common ancestor. They refer to it as ape-like or primate. So your criticism is really one of symantics.

 

Is it disprovable though? It's more like a philosophical framework than a testable theory.

 

I believe a mixture of the two. God, or a higher entity of your choosing, created all things to evolve.