Back to the subject: If you are a non-evolutionist debating an evolutionist on the subject of man, I would recommend using reasonably qualified terminology such as "evolution teaches that people descended from lower animals such as ancient apes." Then if you are charged with error or "ignorance" by an evolutionist [though you shouldn't be -since you post was clear] point out that you said "ancient apes" not modern apes. If they still continue to deny that evolution teaches that people came from apes post the information here (especialy from George Gaylord Simpson).
How to Debate an Evolutionist (if you must)
by hooberus 44 Replies latest watchtower beliefs
-
-
Galileo
Hooberus, you highlighted the wrong sentence:
And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the Catarrhine or Old World stock
That's from your own Darwin quote. It's saying that the common ancestor is a monkey only in as much as we are still monkeys. Your point here is largely semantics, and I don't really understand why you feel that insisting on this point makes your argument stronger. Perhaps you could explain how, from the point of a debate, winning this point will put you at an advantage.
-
drwtsn32
Drew sagan:
Similarly, if mankind hath evolved through a battle of 'survival of the 'fittest' why has not our bodies produced protection device or mechanism (retractable, shell, ect) ?
Evolution tends to favor beneficial traits, but that hardly means we would have every beneficial attribute by now! There are actually many things that could still be improved. This is a challenge for creation but it is certainly not evidence that evolution didn't happen.
-
Galileo
You make a good point. I think a good example is "abiogenesis". They say it is not important, but they do need show how evolution started.
The vast majority of those that accept the theory of evolution, including the pope, don't believe in abiogenesis. Abiogenesis may or may not have happened. The difference between science and religious dogma is that science has no problem admitting where the data is lacking and adapting to better data or a more complete explanation. We have a powerful theory of how life evolves, complete with massive fossil evidence showing transitions, DNA showing gradual change, ERV insertions proving common descent, etc. etc.
We have no hard evidence for abiogenesis. We have hypotheses and some lab experiments showing some possibilities, but it is nowhere near the level of a scientific theory, and so what? It is possible that we will never be able to prove abiogenesis, and so what? Are creationists bringing a theory to the table? Even a better hypothesis? No. There is no evidence for creation. Creation is not a better model. If evolution were a religion, than scientists would take the religionists' shortcut, and say that the first organisms were always in existence, as creationists claim for god. Evidence be damned. But they don't. They say we don't know, because we don't. And neither do you.
-
frankiespeakin
Hooby,
Good to see your not putting miles of empty space in your post like last time.
-
MissingLink
Hooberus - even if you conceed that man decends from "ancient apes" not "modern apes" - your premise is still flawed. See my post above. Evolution does not declare that changes occur to every descendant equally and that all of one thing transform into all of another. In fact it says the exact opposite. Without diverse environmental impacts on different siblings, we would not have the diverse forms of life that we have. There is nothing to dictate how long one certain set of characteristics will stay around in one branch. If chimps are well suited to the jungle, and the jungle environment has been consistent, then we would EXPECT the ones that remained in that environment to not have changed much. Their evolution HAS given them different traits from their ancestors, like increased strength, agility, and limited social skills. Whereas our branch of the family must have had a much different environment in which abstract thought and communication were the skills necessary to survive.
The fact that something similar to our ancestors still are alive is not a valid argument. It is a strawman falicy. I'm trying to help you hone your arguments because they're so uninformed at the moment it's not even interresting replying. A more informed debate would definitly be appreciated.
-
hooberus
Hooberus - even if you conceed that man decends from "ancient apes" not "modern apes" - your premise is still flawed. See my post above. Evolution does not declare that changes occur to every descendant equally and that all of one thing transform into all of another. In fact it says the exact opposite. Without diverse environmental impacts on different siblings, we would not have the diverse forms of life that we have. There is nothing to dictate how long one certain set of characteristics will stay around in one branch. If chimps are well suited to the jungle, and the jungle environment has been consistent, then we would EXPECT the ones that remained in that environment to not have changed much. Their evolution HAS given them different traits from their ancestors, like increased strength, agility, and limited social skills. Whereas our branch of the family must have had a much different environment in which abstract thought and communication were the skills necessary to survive.
The fact that something similar to our ancestors still are alive is not a valid argument. It is a strawman falicy. I'm trying to help you hone your arguments because they're so uninformed at the moment it's not even interresting replying. A more informed debate would definitly be appreciated.
To which of my specific comments are your referring? As far as I recall on this subject I have only been dealing with the specific issue of whether or not the alleged common ancestor of humans and modern apes was himself also an ape (albeit somehwat different from modern apes). Where did I even make the other arguments that you try to rebut?
-
hooberus
Hooberus, you highlighted the wrong sentence:
And as man from a genealogical point of view belongs to the Catarrhine or Old World stock
That's from your own Darwin quote. It's saying that the common ancestor is a monkey only in as much as we are still monkeys. Your point here is largely semantics, and I don't really understand why you feel that insisting on this point makes your argument stronger. Perhaps you could explain how, from the point of a debate, winning this point will put you at an advantage.
Wrong, He was sayong that the common ancestor to the Catarrhine and Platyrrhine monkeys would "undoubtedly have ranked as an ape or a monkey," and that since we are an offshoot of the Catarrhine or Old World stock, we descended from this ape common ancestor. Read the whole passage if you disagree:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/aor/darwin/descent/dom09.htm
Also note the conclusion:
The Simiadae then branched off into two great stems, the New World and Old World monkeys; and from the latter, at a remote period, Man, the wonder and glory of the Universe, proceeded.
-
hooberus
Darwins thoughts were echoed by Simpson:
"On this subject, by the way, there has been too much pussyfooting. Apologists emphasize that man cannot be a descendant of any living ape - a statement that is obvious to the verge of imbecility - and go on to state or imply that man is not really descended from an ape or monkey at all, but from an earlier common ancestor. In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man's ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise." George Gaylord Simpson (prominent evolutionist)
-
davegod
George Gaylord Simpson (prominent evolutionist)
Are you serious? He has been dead for 24 yrs. The fossil record has exploded since then, forget about DNA. Whenever someone has presented themselves as an authority on an subject, that is the first clue to discount whatever they say. I have to tell you this, as time goes by. The evidence for evolution will only continue to grow and evolve. The BS of creationism will only grow more evident. Free your mind.