A honest question to all creationists

by bohm 71 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • leavingwt
  • HappyGuy


    About the species thing. As i understand your position, you are saying that you believe it is plausible that wolf and dogs have the same common ancestor because they are quite 'similar', but eg. a human and a ape do not because they are to 'different' (correct me if i am wrong).

    TD mentioned the example using wolves, dogs, foxes, etc. Wolves and dogs must have a common ancestor or else dogs came from wolves or wolves came from dogs because dogs and wolves can procreate and produce fertile offspring. For me "similar" doesn't mean anything. I think the test is the ability to produce fertile offspring. I don't think that humans and apes have a common ancestor for two reasons, humans are sentient (not exactly the right word, I will explain below) and apes are not and humans and apes cannot produce fertile offspring. I dont' think that humans and apes are similar at all, other than they both being bipedal. Being habitual bipeds puts them into a very select group of mammals and a select group of animals. There are very few habitual biped species.

    Now, my point is that i have never seen anyone point out exactly what gap between man and apes evolution cannot pass - ie. what property(ies) that definately seperate an ape from a human. Is it that we walk upright? is it our brain capacity? etc.

    This doesn't prove anything. You are assuming that apes are an ancestor of humans and then pose the question, "what properties separate them". I do not share that assumption. Humans are sentient, apes are not. I don't think that sentience can be the result of evolution. (I know sentience is not exactly the right word).

    Sentience. Okay, I used the word sentience but that is not actually the correct word. I'm not sure what the right word is, and I know that the philosphy types, the "I am therefore I do not exist because the tree fell and a woman was not there to complain about it" types can object to whatever word I use.

    Humans have a capability to think in a way that animals do not have and will never have. I know, the animal rights nut jobs will go ballistic at that statement, I'm cool with that. I do not believe that this ability could be a product of evolution. And, yes, I am having troube being very specific as to just what this capability is/entails. As,I go through the list of things that humans do that animals don't do I can find examples of different animals doing specific items in the list to a more or lesser degree. For example, I have lots of trees and I watch squirrels out my window while working. They can learn, plan ahead, cooperate, play pranks on other animals (they love to torment cats), they have a sense of humor, they like to play, they will hoard food when it is in abundance, they set up sentries to watch for danger when gathering food, well the list is pretty long. But, a squirrel will always be a squirrel, a squirrel will never become an architect or a deep sea diver or a down hill skier or a mathematician. Squirrels do not wonder why they were put on this earth or what happens to them after they die. They don't have five year plans. They don't know what happened one hundred years ago and they don't care. I'm sorry but I can't put those qualities into words. But I think you can figure out what I am talking about.

  • quietlyleaving

    DNA reveals that humans are 99% ape! The 1% difference consists of 30 million genetic letters that are different from that of apes.

  • zoiks

    Sentience. Okay, I used the word sentience but that is not actually the correct word

    HG- I may be way off here, but I think the term that you may be looking for is "capable of abstract thought". Humans are unique in this ability.

  • TD

    Hi HappyGuy:

    Adaptation and change over time, I am okay with. If you are calling that evolution, I guess that's okay, I don't view evolution as being that, but I have not "studied" evolution the way a biologist would.

    Denton gave an explanation that might be helpful here:

    "In his book Darwin is actually presenting two related but quite distinct theories. The first, which has sometimes been called the "special theory", is relatively conservative and restricted in scope and merely proposes that new races and species arise in nature by the agency of natural selection. The second theory, which is often called the "general theory", is far more radical. It makes the claim that the "special theory" applies universally and hence that the appearance of all the manifold diversity of life on Earth can be explained by a simple extrapolation of the processes which bring about relatively trivial changes such as those seen on the Galapagos Islands. This "general theory" is what most people think of when they refer to evolution theory."

    Although most biologists don't see it this way, (And neither did Darwin) this explanation helps to divide things up into what can and cannot be "proven."

    So, you are saying that the dog family has a common ancestor with the fox or the dog is the ancestor of the fox or the fox is the ancestor of the dog? Either way they now are not compatable reproductively so they are not the same species but they are related to each other. Okay (I guess).

    More probably all members of the dog family share a common ancestor that is no longer around today.

    But it's not just a characteristic of the dog family. Virtually every species is surrounded by a spectrum of other species that are related to it in varying degrees.

    At the "near" end of the spectrum, you will find sub-species so closely related that minor changes in size, color and features are the only real differences between them. Examples would include the Asian and African Lion, and the Summatran and Bengal Tigers.

    As you start to move away from the very closest of kin, you find species that are different but which often can still actively interbreed and produce offspring. For example, a Lion is much less like a Bengal Tiger that a Summatran Tiger is.

    But Lions and Tigers can be bred to produce "Ligers" or "Tygons." (Lion/Tiger and Tiger/Lion respectively) Other examples from the cat family would include crosses between the Leopard/Lion, Lynx/Bobcat, Puma/Leopard. The fact that the Lion and Tiger are fertile together is a pretty strong indicator that they share a common ancestor.

    When you move still farther away, there are species that are still clearly related, but have differentiated to the point where they can't breed at all. A similar example to the Fox is the Cheetah. It's a divergent member of the cat family that has never been successfully crossed with any of the other big cats.

    The million dollar question of course, is how far can the process which made the Cheetah different from the other big cats go? This is the point where those that accept evolution and those that accept creation really start to disagree. The former don't see any limits to this process and the latter usually accept the Biblical tether of immutable "Kinds"

    Without talking about fossils and dating methods and anything controversial, here are a couple things that I think challenge that idea:

    Fertility between organisms does not suddenly shut off like a switch. Living things are fertile together in proportion to how closely they are related.

    For example, the Camel and Llama are not considered to be very closely related. They not only belong to different species, but different genera as well. Attempted crosses between them (By artificial insemination) usually produce absolutely nothing at all. --But not always. Researchers in Dubai have after many attempts successfully crossed the two.

    The result is called a "Cama" ----a creature with the short ears and long tail of the camel, no hump and partially cloven feet halfway between the hoof of the Llama and the padded feet of the Camel:

    Sheep have 54 chromosomes and Goats have 60. They are also not considered very closely related. A cross between sheep and goats is usually stillborn. --But not always. There are documented examples where live offspring have been produced. The resultant creature, called a "Geep" has 57 chromosomes, the long legs of a Goat and the heavy wooley body of a sheep:

    Are sheep and goats one "kind" or two? Neither answer is terribly satisify from the standpoint of strict creationism. If they are one "kind" why is there such a mismatch between their genetic karotypes? If they are two "kinds" why can they produce offspring once in a great while?

    When I read the word evolution, though, I am thinking more about "and life started as a single cell and then there were fish then the fish grew legs and then the monkeys became humans". That is what I cannot accept.

    That is the overall implication of two different theories combined. --Evolution and Abiogenesis. It can't be proven in any way that will satisfy anybody, so it's certainly not worth arguing about.

    Evolution makes no claims about how life got here. --Only that life changes over time.

  • restrangled

    Quit leaving posted:

    DNA reveals that humans are 99% ape! The 1% difference consists of 30 million genetic letters that are different from that of apes.

    So here is my question. If you as a reader of this thread believe we came from apes, why hasn't anyone come forward with sperm or egg in human form to try and mate up with apes scientifically or in a petri dish to see what happens?


  • frankiespeakin





    More closer study reveals chimps have 95% of our dna.

    And humans have up 1% difference throughout the species where it was onece thought we had 99.9% same and .1% difference.

  • restrangled

    Hey Frankie, just as I suspected...nothing proven.


  • frankiespeakin


    The last experiments were in the 1920 I don't think anyone would want to try it now the public outcry would too great and the scientist would have his reputation ruined. I think if they can cross bread a sheep and a goat they could probably do the same thing with chimps and humans but i really doubt anyone would want to try.

    If they did where would they put him in a zoo?

  • cofty

    Interesting to see the words "theory" and "hypotheses" being used interchangeably; they have quite different meanings in this context.

    A hypothesis is something that is unproven, it is close to what we mean by "theory" in everyday language. There are a number of hypothesis regarding abiogenesis for example. Some of them are very compelling but as yet not enough is known to be certain.

    Evolution is not a hypothesis it is a theory in exactly the same way as gravity is a theory, or the movements of the planets are explained by a theory. It is an explanation for a whole body of facts, something that explains numerous pieces of information and shows how they fit together. It can also be used to make further predictions.

    When I was at college I studied electrical "theory", it never occurred to me to ask my tutor why we were not studying electrical "facts". When somebody refers to a field of science as "only a theory" it is a sure indication they have made this common mistake.

    Evolution resulting in the diversity of life on earth from a common ancestor is one of the best attested theories in science. It ties together a huge and growing body of facts from many related fields. It is as certain as the fact that the earth is not flat.

    I used to believe everything that has been said above against evolution until I realised my main motive for rejecting it was an a priori position that there was a creator. When I studied it objectively I was overwhelmed by the weight of evidence. It is, in my opinion, the most fascinating subject in all of human knowledge. I recommend anybody to investigate it for themselves.

Share this