On Human Evolution

by TD 77 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  TD

  It's a subject that comes up fairly often here (Understandably) and very strong opinions are expressed. Much of the discussion seems to be counterproductive.

  I'd like to propose a different approach. We all know what each other's conclusions are (Or at least we should by now)

  Let's talk about our methodology instead. To that end, consider the picture below:

  

  Above is a series of skull models. From left to right, these are:

  1. A. afarensis

  2. A. africanus

  3. H. habilis

  4. H. erectus

  5. H. heidelbergensis

  6. H. neanderthalensis

  7. H. sapiens sapiens

  8. H. sapiens

  I'm making absolutely no claim of evolutionary relationship via this picture. Remember that taxonomy was an established science long before Darwin came on the scene. These represent only a morphological gradient.

  How would you decide which of these are truly ape and which of these are truly human and why? Where would you draw the line and why? There's no right or wrong answer here. I'm not interested in what you think nearly so much as why you think what you think.

  There's only one rule. --No logical fallacies. No ad hoc explanations, no special pleading, no generalization, etc.
• 

  bohm

  really good topic, and really good picture. Where did you find it?
• 

  just n from bethel

  How would you decide which of these are truly ape and which of these are truly human and why?

  Man this is so easy - I'd ask my lord Jehiccup Micaca and whatever he says is the truth. Period. End of Story.
• 

  JonathanH

  This is essentially a tactic I took with my brother, to which he had no reply but to nod his head and say "interesting" which is just code for "my witness training is kicking in and I'm actively not thinking about this anymore."

  I asked him what is the dog part of the dog genome? He accepts that we can manipulate a dog's genes through selective breeding as evidenced by the fact that from wolves we have bred miniature poodles and Mastiffs. But what part of the gene would have to change before you no longer accepted it as a dog? Where is the "dog" gene that seperates it's kind from other kinds?

  Of course the answer to that is obvious to those that took any courses in biology or genetics. There isn't one. A species diverges (or rather a speciation event occurs) not because some essential part of their gene changes, but because a large enough portion of their genes have changed that they can't succesffully produce offspring anymore, and due to sexual selection, they probably wouldn't try to anyway.

  But taxonomy while having a function in biology, is from a pragmatic standpoint just a human invention to catagorize things we see a relationship in. If you travelled back in time five thousand years and showed somebody a french bulldog, do you really think they would make the connection that this thing is in fact of the same "kind" (whatever that means) as the vicious pack hunters that they were gradually bred from? Or would they think that this snorting, short, stocky, boxy shaped animal is just another wierd creature that they've never seen before? There is no such thing as "kind", there is no "dog gene" that makes a dog a dog, and not some other animal that is part of a different "kind". We mistake taxanomy which is simply catagorizing things that are similar (and today they are catagorized by evolutionary and genetic lineages, and not simple morphological similarity as ancient people would've done), as concrete lines seperating one thing from another. They are not. Life is just blending shades of grey.
• 

  sabastious

  I think this is literally the hardest question I have ever been asked. I'm not sure where to begin...

  I thought the Ida fossil proved that we didn't descend from apes, but both humans and apes have a common ansestor, right?

  -Sab
• 

  DagothUr

  It's not the form of the skull that makes us humans human. It's the breath of Jehovah who made Adam into His likeness as a spiritual, intelligent, bla, bla, bla, bla, bla............

  Any authentic fossil that can be used against creationism was deviced and placed by Satan in order to deceive us.
• 

  sabastious

  Any authentic fossil that can be used against creationism was deviced and placed by Satan in order to deceive us.

  I love when someone gives me this answer because I then know not to waste my time. Data is data

  -Sab
• 

  cofty

  Great question TD.

  My answer would be that any deliniation would be necessarily arbitrary. It is only a chance of history that all the intermediate steps between these individuals - or at least the cousins that connect them to common ancestors - are not still alive.

  Imagine a world where a human female could hold the hand of her mother who holds the hand of her mother who holds the hand of...... and so on all the way back for thousands of generations. Only by standing way back from the scene could we even notice the change across the generations.

  It is useful to catalogue fossils, how else would curators know what box to put them in? But it reinforces the view of history that leads creationists to rant on about "missing links". Every living thing is a link between something that was and something to come.

  I hope that answer does not sound evasive, I look forward to reading others.
• 

  kurtbethel

  It's all about the ride!

  
• 

  DagothUr

  I was just being sarcastic...I love sarcasm.