Darwin Online

[Minimalist]

Most people I know don't have a problem with that.

How quickly you forgot ole Arch!

[john]

My only comment to that ish is please offer an alternative if you don't accept the general viewpoint.

What? You want me to come up with an alternative to Darwin's theory...now?

I'm sorry, I've got to watch The Apprentice.

(Dig - I don't have to come up with an alternative. The young boy was allowed to shout out that the emperor had no clothes on without having to be a trained tailor.)

Ishtar -

Right on.

So, to use the infamous Galapagos finches as an example..........

A lonely flock of finches, blown offcourse and offshore by stormwinds, finds shelter on the Galapagos Islands. They are all of one, Linnean, "species", upon arrival. They have to adapt to whatever food, seasons and weather the Galapagos has to offer. Probably a significant number of them die, and a few individuals succeed in survival.

Those who survive, survive individually, in the sense that this finch figured out a good food source from particular insects, and that finch found a food source in seeds of plants. They teach their offspring their preferences, if nothing else by the offspring's imitation of the parent's behavior.

In time, they adapt morphologically into many "species", adapting to specific habitats/food sources, i.e., the thin slightly curved beak of the insect eating finch vs. the heavy triangular beak of the seed eating finch. They eventually become genetically distinct, i.e., cannnot interbreed.

Now, this is the Darwinian take, which can be reverse-engineered back to billion year old single celled life.

The Creationist take is that Gawd, one morning, took a look at the Galapagos, and said "Shit, I need me some finches down there. Hmmm, yup, a seedeater, and insect eater, and some others", and poofbang we have the Galapagos finches. Now, how Gawd came to the conclusion that HE (by the way here, trivia question, can anyone tell me how big Gawd's penis is?) needed a seedeater and an insect eater and some others is beyond our poor human ken, but in his spare time he also made sure to hardwire humans that they could expect a seedeater and and insect eater and some others, no more, no less. So, humans, like software, are regularly updated by Gawd to "Version 5.11" so that there is no discontinuity among the varieties of finches and the corresponding perception of humans. Priests, of course are updated to Version 5.12 simultaneously. The Pope is given a Beta Version of 5.15.

The Bicameral Alternative.

I propose that the infinite number of entities in the "Universe" all possess bicameral awareness. Given the dynamics of bicameral awareness, they are, collectively, one awareness.

Neither Darwin (science) nor God (religion).

Thus Alexander Pope's brilliant observation about the sparrow's fall.

Thus the shamanic.

More to come.


hoka hey


john

[Beagle]

How quickly you forgot ole Arch!

I didn't really forget the old boy, but he's not most people.

[Minimalist]

Thank goodness.

[Ishtar]

Hello Beags, sorry to be a late with my reply but I've been sleeping. It's 6.33 am here now and looks like it's going to be a beautiful day.

Well, on to 'my theory'. Frankly, I'm a little surprised that anyone would think that I had come up with an alternative to Darwin's theory (you must have amazing faith in my intellectual prowess, guys!) just because I said that I didn't believe that we are descended from a common ape-like ancestor and pointed out some holes in Darwin's theory.

Neither am I Biblical creationist.

Just to take your quote from Wikepedia:

Since the time of Carolus Linnaeus, scientists have considered the great apes to be the closest relatives of human beings, based on morphological similarity. In the 19th century, they speculated that the closest living relatives of humans are chimpanzees. Based on the natural range of these creatures, they surmised that humans share a common ancestor with other African great apes and that fossils of these ancestors would ultimately be found in Africa. It is now accepted by virtually all biologists that humans are not only similar to the great apes but, in fact, are great apes.

So as my bolding shows, there's been a lot of considering, speculating and surmising going on based on morphological similarity. But because we're similar to apes in our morphology doesn't mean, QED, we are all descended from a common ancestor. That's a leap of faith that you can choose to make, or not - faith not proven science.

As I pointed out in an earlier post,

For a scientific theory to be copper bottomed, it should not be:

1. Observable. That man descended from a common ancestor is plainly not observable, as we cannot find the common ancestor and probably would need to use Dr Who's Tardis to find him, if he did exist.
2. Testable. Any assumptions should be provable by consistently reproducing a similar outcome. We cannot test this because we have no ‘common ancestor’ to use in the test.

and it cannot be ....

1. Based on speculation. Darwin himself admitted his theory was full of speculation.
2. In contradiction with other proven facts (such as the Natural Laws or Physical Laws) - Well, we don't know if it's in contradiction or not as it purports to be a natural law in and of itself.

To conclude, I think that Darwin's theory of the Descent of Man has staggered along and survived so long in this shaky state for two reasons:

1. All the money and research is funnelled into work that supports the idea and not into whether the idea is true - rather like the linguists and their Aryan Invasion Theory.
2. It's isn't Creationism ..... and better a shaky stick to beat the Creationist with than none at all!

Hope this helps.

[Minimalist]

Based on speculation. Darwin himself admitted his theory was full of speculation.

The last 150 years have done much to dispel that.

The biologist Soojin Yi's team at Georgia Institute of Technology in Atlanta compared 63m base pairs of DNA from different species, where each base is a letter in the animal's genetic code. They then analysed the DNA to look at what evolutionary biologists call the molecular clock, the rate at which an animal's genetic code evolves. The speed of the clock shows how the span of a generation has changed over the millennia.

The tests showed that even though humans and chimps split from a common ancestor between 5m and 7m years ago, the rate at which their genetic codes were evolving was extremely similar, differing by only 3%, and much slower than gorillas and orang-utans.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/ ... reducation


Darwin had no access to such data. What could he have accomplished with it?

[Beagle]

Ishtar, everything you commented on in that quote was in the past tense. The final line is the most important.

It is now accepted by virtually all biologists that humans are not only similar to the great apes but, in fact, are great apes.


Science, over time, can only verify or refute a theory. Since Darwin wrote his theory science has added numerous morphological and genetic studies that all but prove we are descended from primate ancestors.

It's fine to disbelieve something, but you didn't say what it is that you believe. I'm still as curious as I was before.

[Ishtar]

I believe that I don't have to know everything, Beags.

I believe that I don't have to buy into some shaky theory rather than say "I don't know."

As was shown on this board earlier on in the discussion, it proves to be difficult to separate Darwinism from Creationism in peoples' minds because - and Darwin may not have intended it this way - it was developed as a reaction to Creationism.

Min on your quote, the first sentence is ambigious.

The tests showed that even though humans and chimps split from a common ancestor between 5m and 7m years ago, the rate at which their genetic codes were evolving was extremely similar, differing by only 3%, and much slower than gorillas and orang-utans.

Did the tests show that humans and chimps split from a common ancestor etc .... or are they saying that even though the humans split from a common ancestor, the rate at which genetic codes .....and so on?

I don't see how it could be the former unless they had actually found said common ancestor.

I'll talk to you some more later. I have to go to work now.

Have a good day ...

[Beagle]

I'll talk to you some more later. I have to go to work now.

No need Ishtar - you've answered my question. Thank you. I think I understand perfectly.

You have a good day! I'm definately going to bed.

[Ishtar]

I'm not actually just being negative, here, Beags. Although I don't have a theory to rival Darwin's, I do have some ideas of my own based on the thinking of scientists like Frances Crick (who co-discovered the structure of DNA) and also those of biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan and the archaeologist Gordon Childe.

I hinted at some of it earlier on in my reference to how 'revolution' comes out of 'evolution' as a contradiction.

But I'm not willing to expose the seeds of any new and germinating ideas into the blazing light of this forum until there is a place for them to take root - in other words, until we have at least some openness to the idea that Darwin could have been wrong and can discuss them without prejudice.

.

It is now accepted by virtually all biologists that humans are not only similar to the great apes but, in fact, are great apes.

I don't doubt that it is 'accepted by virtually all biologists that humans are not only similar to the great apes but, in fact, are great apes.'

That's because:

a. biologists reduce everything down to inert materialism, to dead physics and chemistry, that is a direct result of an eighteenth and nineteenth century reaction to 'creationism' or 'intelligent design'.

b. all the money and research in the last 150 years has gone into proving Darwin's theory, and not in critically examining it, although, after all that time and money, they still they have not managed to prove it.

Science, over time, can only verify or refute a theory. Since Darwin wrote his theory science has added numerous morphological and genetic studies that all but prove we are descended from primate ancestors.

'All but prove' is like saying someone is 'nearly pregnant'. As I said before, you have to be prepared to make a leap of faith to say that morphological similarities with the ape family, per se, mean that we definitely have a common ancestor with them. That's fine if you want to believe it... but you can't call it science.

[Ishtar]

I propose that the infinite number of entities in the "Universe" all possess bicameral awareness. Given the dynamics of bicameral awareness, they are, collectively, one awareness.

Neither Darwin (science) nor God (religion).

Thus Alexander Pope's brilliant observation about the sparrow's fall.

Thus the shamanic.

More to come.

Good stuff, John. Keep it coming.

To pick up on your 'neither Darwin, nor God' - I think it's a shame that the anti-creationists feel that they have to hang on to Darwin until their knuckles turn blue for fear, otherwise, that the creationists will have their way.

Unlike Darwin's theory, the creationists' theory (I wouldn't even flatter it with that name) is palpably preposterous and they don't even make any attempt to prove it is anything more than a fairy story.

You don't need Darwin to beat the creationists. You just need common sense.

[Ishtar]

I've read your article, Min, and found the answer to my original question:

"This study provides further support for the hypothesis that humans and chimpanzees should be in one genus, rather than in two different genera, because we not only share extremely similar genomes, we share similar generation time," said Dr Yi.

In other words, Yi and his team believe that we should be in the same genus because we share extremely similar genomes and a similar generation time. Once again, Darwin's shared morphology is declared to be the reason for why we must share a common ancestor.

But the intitial statement about man and apes 'splitting from a common ancestor ...." made at the beginning of your quote - was an accepted (but unproven) assumption by the journalist and the scientists.

The article does however provide an amusing story:

In 1991, the Pulitzer prize-winning ecologist Jared Diamond called humans "the third chimpanzee", setting us alongside the common chimp (Pan troglodytes) and its less aggressive but astoundingly promiscuous cousin, the bonobo (Pan paniscus). By 1999 confusion over the biological status of chimpanzees prompted scientists in New Zealand to join forces with lawyers to petition the country's government to pass a bill conferring "rights" on chimpanzees and other primates. The move drew derision. Roger Scruton, the moral philosopher, asked: "Do we really think that the jails of New Zealand should henceforth be filled with malicious chimpanzees? If not, by what right are they to be exempted from punishment?"

[Digit]

Your objection Ish , the speculation etc etc, is why it's a theory and not a Law.
When someone proposes a theory it is a proposal for examination based on oberservable events and taken forward.
But to destroy a Theory it is necessary to show that in some cases it breaks down. Simply saying 'I don't believe it' is, to me, worse than the Creationist viewpoint. Credible or not, they do offer an alternative. Sorry!

[Ishtar]

But to destroy a Theory it is necessary to show that in some cases it breaks down. Simply saying 'I don't believe it' is, to me, worse than the Creationist viewpoint. Credible or not, they do offer an alternative. Sorry!

I have said that I don't believe it - that's true, Dig. But, unlike a creationist, I have given my reasons, and have also shown where the theory breaks down.

For instance, the reasoning used, that of the similarities in morphology, does not of itself prove a common ancestor, any more than all the morphologically similar clouds in the sky point to one ancestral mother cloud, or all the morphologically similar blades of grass point to one ancestral blade of grass.

There is, to my thinking, a might chasm between 'morphological similarity' and 'common ancestor' and to me, it's blindingly obvious.

Of course we are morphologically similar to apes and many other creatures - Darwin even shows how we have similarities to fish at one point - but the reason for that is because the genetic code of all beings is made up of the four same letters - they just vary in how they are combined.

So of course there will be similarities, some of them quite marked, but that of itself does not prove a common ancestor with apes ...the only common ancestor I can see is DNA itself.

[Beagle]

I'm not actually just being negative, here, Beags. Although I don't have a theory to rival Darwin's, I do have some ideas of my own based on the thinking of scientists like Frances Crick (who co-discovered the structure of DNA) and also those of biologists Lynn Margulis and Dorion Sagan and the archaeologist Gordon Childe.

I hinted at some of it earlier on in my reference to how 'revolution' comes out of 'evolution' as a contradiction.

But I'm not willing to expose the seeds of any new and germinating ideas into the blazing light of this forum until there is a place for them to take root - in other words, until we have at least some openness to the idea that Darwin could have been wrong and can discuss them without prejudice.

.

It is now accepted by virtually all biologists that humans are not only similar to the great apes but, in fact, are great apes.

I don't doubt that it is 'accepted by virtually all biologists that humans are not only similar to the great apes but, in fact, are great apes.'

That's because:

a. biologists reduce everything down to inert materialism, to dead physics and chemistry, that is a direct result of an eighteenth and nineteenth century reaction to 'creationism' or 'intelligent design'.

b. all the money and research in the last 150 years has gone into proving Darwin's theory, and not in critically examining it, although, after all that time and money, they still they have not managed to prove it.

Science, over time, can only verify or refute a theory. Since Darwin wrote his theory science has added numerous morphological and genetic studies that all but prove we are descended from primate ancestors.

'All but prove' is like saying someone is 'nearly pregnant'. As I said before, you have to be prepared to make a leap of faith to say that morphological similarities with the ape family, per se, mean that we definitely have a common ancestor with them. That's fine if you want to believe it... but you can't call it science.

G'morning Ishtar. Unfortunately I must say that I don't see anything in this post that I would regard as true. That also applies to your subsequent posts.

We are in disagreement here. You have answered me by saying that you don't believe in evolution as a theory, and that you're unwilling to share any theory of your own.

I think we all understand where you're coming from.

I won't belabor the issue. You have the last word M'lady (as long as it's not inflammatory), and I will not respond again.