The Official Perfection KOs Creationism Thread Part Five: The Revenge of Mike Shermer

[Perfection]

Why hasn't archeological evidence surfaced which can conclusively link man via evolutionary branch(es) to other primates/apes?

I'm fully prepared to say that I evolved from apes, provided it can be scientifically proven. As it stands, there is a massive evolutionary genetic gap which remains unexplained. But I'm sure the answer can be found, right here... in CFC. Let us be enlightened.

Well, I'd say the link between humans and apes via genetic, fossil, an physiological simularities has been conclusively proven. We have ape bodies, ape genes, we have a series of ape fossils that become progressively more like us. The case that we are apes is pretty solid.

What we can't deliver is an exact account for every single transition from the nearest common ancestor of chimps and man to modern man and all the evolutionary dead ends. This is because protohuman fossils are rare, which is unsurprising for species that existed with small populations over short perioids of time. But there's no reason to think that we need to understand every transition to conclude that humans are decended from and indeed are apes.

 

[Perfection]

Anything non-domesticated?

Sheesh, what's with all these new stipulations?

Okay, how about new 'larger' species in the last 3 million years (to arrive after Lucy)?

Humans?

You know, Perfection, I had thought that these threads of yours were pointless, due to no longer needing to explain evolution. Well, I was wrong apparently.

Yeah, people need to learn some science or at least learn that they know jack crap about science and shouldn't prattle on about stuff they don't know bumpkis about.

 

[Stewbert 08]

I must say that this and your previous posts is the most blantantly offensively aggressive posting and the most extreme cherry-picking and semantics-twisting I have ever read here! Basically, if the bible says 'black', but you need it to say 'yellow', you'll just redefine that 'black is what God called yellow before he turned it yellow, so it's the [proto-yellow[/i]'

Bravo best post in this thread.

You haven't even addressed my initial claim. My initial claim had nothing to do with the creation story in Genesis. My initial claim was that the Garden of Eden describes the evolution of man's consciousness from animal to human.

I have addressed your initial claim. You claimed that a passage in the book of Genesis was meant, either by the humans who wrote it or by the divine spirit that inspired it, to refer to the evolution of human consciousness.

I've shown that the humans who wrote Genesis (or the divine consciousness that supposedly inspired them) had no clue of the evolutionary history of life on this planet.

That makes the inference that the Garden of Eden is magically pointing to evolution, an extremely weak one.

You started this argument by claiming

And if you study the religious explanations about the origin of the Earth, the science supports religion.

In fact, as you have shown, religious people need to construct whole new systems of interpretation to deliberately realign their beliefs - after the fact - with discovered science. When read literally their texts are, from a scientific point of view, bullcrap.

For example you've created a whole new definition for the word "firmament," namely "the altered sky seen from the proto-earth after it was struck by the hypothetical Theia object." Guess what, this isn't what firmament means, it's not what the scribes thought they meant when they wrote firmament, it's not what 5950 years of exegesis of Genesis thinks firmament means, it's the definition you've invented for the word firmament in an attempt to make Genesis sound like it is something other than sheepherders on LSD.

The word firmament actually refers to a mythical layer of clear crystal in the sky that kept the stars from falling and stored water in the heavens (except when God wanted it to rain). A common ancient belief - an EXCUSABLE belief for people 5000 years ago to have! - but today? scientific bullcrap.

Your constant post-hoc rewriting of Genesis in this thread demonstrates not that "science supports religion" but that "religion really likes to think it's supported by science."

What does your new Genesis-explanation add to human thought? Nothing because it's just built around sounding-like what science has discovered. If in 10 years scientists discover something that radically alters the evolutionary history of life I've presented in this thread, you'll rejigger your interpretation of Genesis so that it still magically points to whatever is the most advanced scientific understanding of the universe.

Post-hoc = worthless. Have fun constantly chasing behind the people who are actually discovering things about the universe.

C'mon, I specified a 'larger' animal before. I still mean it. We have all of North America to work with, you'd think we could find another species which appeared after people.

Well you're asking for a secondary, actually likely a tertiary consumer species that evolved in the last 200k years, you won't find it. You will only find species with an accelerated genetic development (i.e. bred animals).

I think sheep are a good enough example as they are infertile with their evolutionary ancestor, the goat.

(I see you got some older examples too, good . I kinda slept through Phylogeny, I don't know if you can tell it from this thread, my main interest is microbio )

'Cause unless that fruit of knowledge was chock full of retroviri that rewrote parts of Adam's sperm

Which would be pretty cool.

And actually effective viral genetic therapy is only a few decades down the road, years even maybe.

 

[El_Machinae]

I think sheep are a good enough example as they are infertile with their evolutionary ancestor, the goat.

I didn't know that! It is a good example! Sorry Perf!

 

[Perfection]

I didn't know that! It is a good example! Sorry Perf!

Well, it's actually the Mouflon, but it's infertile with that.

 

[Simple Simon]

Bravo best post in this thread.

wrong! This is best post:

[snip] it's the definition you've invented for the word firmament in an attempt to make Genesis sound like it is something other than sheepherders on LSD. [snip]
Your constant post-hoc rewriting of Genesis in this thread demonstrates not that "science supports religion" but that "religion really likes to think it's supported by science."

While I would not not go as far as to say the writers were all shepherds on LSD, one must always keep in mind that the people they wrote (or rather narrated) for were mostly shepherds! See Genesis 1 vs. 2 - the older, more simple and allegorical Genesis wasn't good enough to stand up to the complex Babylonian mythology, so a new, improved, more structured Genesis, which had to also lay claim to the comfy 7-day-week, was written. On an intellectual level definitely intended for shepherds awed by a superior culture.

 

[Lotus49]

[...] But there's no reason to think that we need to understand every transition to conclude that humans are decended from and indeed are apes.

If only if were a highly educated geneticist I have a sinking feeling I'd be able to retort that assumption. Something along the lines of how just a few differences in the lines of genetic code can make tremendous differences, and while it may be safe to presume than man has evolved over time, it may be a bit of a stretch to directly link him with the ancestors of modern apes, without conclusive proof.

Theoretically all life came from early microbes. So technically, we could be considered 'related'. But the line you're trying to connect with - is that the evolved creatures that were the ancestors of apes, are in the same family tree as the evolved early ancestors of man. It's possible that the nearest 'link' might actually be a creature that doesn't even resemble primates.

Thus, "man came from apes" is not conclusive.

 

[Simple Simon]

If only if were a highly educated geneticist I have a sinking feeling I'd be able to retort that assumption. Something along the lines of how just a few differences in the lines of genetic code can make tremendous differences, and while it may be safe to presume than man has evolved over time, it may be a bit of a stretch to directly link him with the ancestors of modern apes, without conclusive proof.

Theoretically all life came from early microbes. So technically, we could be considered 'related'. But the line you're trying to connect with - is that the evolved creatures that were the ancestors of apes, are in the same family tree as the evolved early ancestors of man. It's possible that the nearest 'link' might actually be a creature that doesn't even resemble primates.

Thus, "man came from apes" is not conclusive.

Nice attempt, but it really fails badly. The reason being that the genetic compatibility is extreme between us and other Great Apes - actually, we are closer to chimps and gorillas than to Orang Utans. So the LCA (last common ancestor) was an animal that was more similar to Orangs, Gorillas and us than to any other living being!

 

[Perfection]

If only if were a highly educated geneticist I have a sinking feeling I'd be able to retort that assumption. Something along the lines of how just a few differences in the lines of genetic code can make tremendous differences, and while it may be safe to presume than man has evolved over time, it may be a bit of a stretch to directly link him with the ancestors of modern apes, without conclusive proof.

The principle behind this is that the more time two species ancestors spent apart from each other (in non-interbreeding clades) the greater the difference in genetic material accumulates (mutation is very common so this is a good metric for extraspecies level relatedness). We clearly see that our genetics are closer to chimps then to orangutans and organgutans then to monkeys and monkeys and to other mammals.

Also, it's a mistake to think that genetics is the only argument for men being apes. Remember, this was put forth in the very first version of the On the Origin of Species. The largest arguments are the great number of physical similarities between men and apes with the fossil record also providing an important role.

BTW, Earth is not the 3rd celestial object from Sol

 

[Demetrias]

I heard there was as much genetic difference between Humans and pigs as Human and Chimps. Does anyone know if this is true or not?

P.S. Also I thought the rules post said we were not supposed to use religious text. So why is most of this an attempted refutation of Genesis and not a discussion of evolution? Personaly I am an evolutionary creationist so it doesn't bother me but I had assumed the thread was mainly an attempt at presenting rational claims for evolution. My veiw is that Genesis wasn't meant to be a fool proof document. It's main point is that God by himself created everything and that God is the most powerful being in the universe and we owe everything to him. It is not about order but about soveriegnty.

 

[El_Machinae]

No, we're very, very much closer to chimps.

Biologically, though, we still are similar enough to pigs that we'd be able to use them to grow genetically-compatible organs. So, while a pig liver is toxic to us, a genetically-modified liver could be grown in a pig before being implanted in a person.

 

[Perfection]

I think ElMac answered Demetrias question well enough

P.S. Also I thought the rules post said we were not supposed to use religious text. So why is most of this an attempted refutation of Genesis and not a discussion of evolution? Personaly I am an evolutionary creationist so it doesn't bother me but I had assumed the thread was mainly an attempt at presenting rational claims for evolution. My veiw is that Genesis wasn't meant to be a fool proof document. It's main point is that God by himself created everything and that God is the most powerful being in the universe and we owe everything to him. It is not about order but about soveriegnty.

Here's the rule in question

We are arguing scientific credibility, therefore religious texts are not by fiat correct.

Religious texts certainly are allowed to be discussed, I just don't want us to assume correctness.

This is somewhat tangential to a strict evo-creo debate, but because it's related, and allows us to clarify points about evolution I'm allowing it to continue.

 

[Simple Simon]

No, we're very, very much closer to chimps.

Biologically, though, we still are similar enough to pigs that we'd be able to use them to grow genetically-compatible organs. So, while a pig liver is toxic to us, a genetically-modified liver could be grown in a pig before being implanted in a person.

addendum
Pigs being the animals of choice because of a high immunological similarity coupled with two very important other factors:
- nobody while whine about a pig being killed for 'replacement parts'
- pigs are easy to raise and operate.


Imagine raising chimps for venous valves! What an outcry would follow (quite rightly)!

 

[Lotus49]

BTW, Earth is not the 3rd celestial object from Sol

Sorry but "...on a constant orbital path with reference plane to the center of mass" wouldn't quite fit.

 

[Berzerker]

Brennan

Your 'interpretation' of Genesis reads far more into the story than can really be lifted from the text.

Where in Genesis does it say God created the universe or this planet (or the waters)? Heaven refers to the firmament used to divide the waters and Earth is the name God gave to the dry land. Thats what Genesis says, not my interpretation...

And at the point where you deny that Genesis refers to creation you are so far off the map of any interpretation I am aware of that further debate seems pointless.

Huh? Where did I say Genesis does not refer to creation? It just doesn't refer to the creation of the universe.

If you want a reply, please describe in detail how you make the mind boggling leaps from the text to the conclusions you draw from it, e.g. how you get a planet spinning around the sun from the stuff about light and dark

I already explained that several times, the "Light" is the name God gave to the day and dark to the night. The Earth has day and night because it spins in close proximity to the Sun. Why is that complicated?

I mean it's not like it was so obviously a reference to a heliocentric solar system of spinning globes that it didn't take a couple of thousand years for Copernicus to suggest that interpretation? And yet here you are drawing that conclusion like it's the most obvious thing going. Highly dubious.

The authors didn't say the Sun was the center of the system, nor do they deny it.

 

[Berzerker]

Simon

So you say that 'knowledge of good and evil' is an autapomorphy of Homo sapiens? Or of the entire genus Homo? Could you please define this autapomorphy in a meaningful way? That is: define 'good', 'bad', 'knowledge', and how we are supposed to be able to distinguish the presence of this autapomorphy in fossil finds (fossil, because nearly all descendants of Adam and Eve are by now dead, and there is no reliable eyewitness account of their knowledge).

Jesus, I said the Garden story represents our evolution in consciousness from animals to humans and I provided a few verses that show what I'm talking about. The eyewitness accounts come from the ancestors of all the peoples of the world with ancient myths that speak of our departure from the animals.

To save you time, let me just ask ONE question: if the 'evolution' of this supposed trait distinguishes humans from non-human animals, how come chimp and other primates as well as some parrot and dolphin species have an understanding of it?

Maybe they ate from the tree of knowledge But I'd love to know how you figured out these animals understand good and evil as opposed to desirable and undesirable. The tree of knowledge refers to alot more than just good and evil, it refers to what makes us like the gods. But you cant very well attach an encyclopedic description to a name for a tree.

I must say that this and your previous posts is the most blantantly offensively aggressive posting and the most extreme cherry-picking and semantics-twisting I have ever read here! Basically, if the bible says 'black', but you need it to say 'yellow', you'll just redefine that 'black is what God called yellow before he turned it yellow, so it's the proto-yellow'

Sounds real bad... So, Genesis says land appeared from under the waters and God called the land "Earth". And what about the waters? They were here before the land appeared, the world was covered by water. It is the appearance of the land that God takes credit for, not the waters or this planet. If you got something to refute that, go right ahead.

 

[Berzerker]

Yuri

Who's theory of evolution are you working with, Lamark's? 'Cause unless that fruit of knowledge was chock full of retroviri that rewrote parts of Adam's sperm, there's no reason that any pybroduct of eating that fruit should have become inheritable by his offspring. If he abruptly realized the nature of good and evil, then he was born with the capacity to do so.

Well, it sure wasn't an apple... The Sumerians/Akkadians had a myth claiming the gods tried to bind the image of the gods onto a creature roaming Enki's Abzu (domain to the SW of Sumer) to create a primitive worker. Even the monotheistic Hebrews left that in the Bible when God says to his colleagues "let us make man in our image".

Various cultures have myths of a time when more primitive peoples (I'm using the term to include hominids) were alive and how we came into existence. The Zulu say their ancient ancestors (called, "the artificial ones" in the myth) went to war with the ape men. We know the flood myth goes back to the end of the ice age maybe 14,000 years ago, why not oral traditions of early humans having contact with hominids going back maybe 100,000 years when our ancestors were living in E Africa and the fertile crescent?

 

[Perfection]

Sorry but "...on a constant orbital path with reference plane to the center of mass" wouldn't quite fit.

That's wrong too.

 

[Berzerker]

Perfection

It's not my theory, it's the dominant scientific opinion. The change in orbit was insufficient to bring it to some new area in space (so on the order of a few million miles or less). We're talking a point then in between Mars and Venus roughly where Earth today (correcting for the fact that planetary orbits increase in radius over billions of years due decreasing solar mass).

Is there actual evidence of such a collision to back up the dominant theory? Like a trail of debris near the orbits of Mars and Venus? How did the Earth form and keep so much water so close to the Sun? I'd think the early solar wind would have blown water vapor and other gases out of the inner solar system.

Why is the Earth about 7 degrees off the solar equator? Sounds like the collision had enough of an impact to move the Earth 7 degrees out of whack and play other games with the orbits of the planets. I suppose a planet could form at 7 degrees off the nebular axis but wouldn't an even larger planet form faster in the denser part of the nebula?

Yes

Where? And we'll find evidence of the collision there?

There's no complete theory but certainly there are clearly evident patterns. The current thinking about Giant Impact (Earth's orginal orbit being roughly where it is now, and the impactor being formed at one of the Earth's Lagrange points) certainly does fit in with planetary formation theory.

What pattern?

It is based on the actual evidence, (Earth/lunar weight and density, planetary formation patterns, angular momentum etc. etc.) just because you don't know it and I'm not going to fully flesh out every bit of theory doesn't mean it doesn't have signficant evidence.

By actual evidence I mean actual evidence of the collision (debris), but I am interested in planetary formation patterns. Is there a pattern if the Earth was not here? Is there a gap in the pattern where the Earth should or could be?

Why? Isn't it obvious that after 4.some billion years the debris could get scattered by gravitational interaction with planets?

No... I dont see how the gravitation of the planets would eliminate the evidence of the collision site. There sure would have been alot of loose rock flying around in different orbits even crossing the orbits of the planets (or becoming captured or expelled) but the collision would have produced a trail of debris that we can identify even if alot of the rock was dispersed. Just in case it survived . Is there a trail of debris?

You're thinking about LHB, which has nothing to do with Giant Impact Hypothesis.

So in LHB (?) the Earth was not hit after being formed 4.5 bya (aside from occasional meteorites)? Why does the theory need a low velocity impactor?

I don't think there is any direct geologic evidence of anything before the giant impact including water presence.

The earliest rocks and oceans (and life) date back close to 3.9 bya. If this impact occurred 4bya then things settled down enough for rock formation, oceans and life after 100 my (and that was after a massive impact). If the proto-Earth formed at 4.5-6 bya and needed a similar amount of time, then it would have had a rock crust and an ocean (assuming vast amounts of water vapor was available this close to the Sun) at 4.4 bya, almost a 1/2 by before the collision. Clearly there was an abundance of water after the collision, so unless it all came with the impactor it was here before the collison.

Yep! It's not my fault if that doesn't make intuitive sense to you, you should work on overcoming that, because your intuition of orbital mechanics seems to suck.

Sorry, just asking questions. But the theory should try to locate the collision site since it is kinda important.

How the hell would it do that?

If long term comets got their orbits as a result of this collision, there's no need for the Oort Cloud to explain them. The fact so many have retrograde orbits suggest to me the impactor was following an inclined retrograde orbit.

 

[Babbler]

How did the Earth form and keep so much water so close to the Sun? I'd think the early solar wind would have blown water vapor and other gases out of the inner solar system.

Volcanic outgassing is one proposed source of terrestial water.

The earliest rocks and oceans (and life) date back close to 3.9 bya. If this impact occurred 4bya then things settled down enough for rock formation, oceans and life after 100 my (and that was after a massive impact).

The oldest minerals, IIRC, are ~4.4 Ga; the oldest rocks are a big younger.