Darwin Online

[Digit]

That's fine if you want to believe it... but you can't call it science.

Yes I can!

[Ishtar]

OK Beags, let's agree to disagree. Wouldn't be the first time, would it?

But I don't know what you mean by "I can have the last word". We are in the middle of a discussion here...and none of us can decree who will have the last word of it.

[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.

Pardon me Dig, but my post was covered so quickly that I fear it won't be seen. Now I'm on the new page. Cool Bro'.

[Ishtar]

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.

Sorry, just noticed this and need to make a correction. I haven't said that I don't believe in evolution as a theory.

I have said that I don't believe that man has a common ancestor that he shares with an ape or chimp.

There is a difference.

[Digit]

There is indeed a difference Ish, thank you for clarifying the point.
So are you suggesting different ancestors for the Apes and Man or an act of special establishment for mankind?

[Ishtar]

No, I'm not suggesting that ... I merely believe that we are not from a common ancestor that we share with an ape for the reasons I've given. I don't know about the rest ... I have some ideas, but they're just ideas.

Maybe I'm naive, but I'm still surprised that in order to criticise a scientific theory, some of you think that I should have to a copper bottomed alternative theory of my own.

Like I said in a previous post, the young boy who shouted that the emperor had no clothes on was not a trained tailer, or even an amateur one.

And also, if you thought I had an alternative theory of my own that knocked spots of Darwin's, do you think I'd be sitting here talking to you guys about it? Fat chance! I'd be too busy getting ready to collect my Nobel prize!

[Digit]

Maybe I'm naive, but I'm still surprised that in order to criticise a scientific theory, some of you think that I should have to a copper bottomed alternative theory of my own.

It would add validity to your objections, and something to discuss would it not?

[Ishtar]

I don't think I need them to add validity ... and there's still plenty here to discuss.

Nobody in this thread has yet managed to show me why morphological similarities lead automatically to a common ancestor.

There's been a lot of telling me I'm wrong - but no explanations as to why I'm wrong which, if it stood up, I would humbly accept. (Well, maybe not humbly! But I would accept it).

But so far, all I'm getting is the odd patronising wave of the hand, a smilie wink with "I think we all understand where you're coming from", as if speaking for the whole board. Add to that a refusal to debate or should I say the "rose garden" approach (often adopted by beleagured Presidents ) and even the statement "I don't see anything in your posts that I would regard as true." True is a very strong and emotive word to use in the context of a discussion where we are merely putting our views and explaining how we arrived at them.

All of the above tactics would not be unusual in the Club.

So I would really welcome it if someone could show me why I'm wrong. I may even end up agreeing with them!

[Digit]

Right then! Take Bats, for example, they range in size from a wing span of a few inches to over a metre. Some are insectivors, some are carnivours, some are fruit eaters, some blood suckers, some fish and some live on nectar. How many ancestors are we looking for Ish? One for each type, or a common one?

[Ishtar]

Right...let's see.

Bats are a species, right? And human beings are a species ... some are black, some are pink, some won't eat meat, some eat only fruit, some are fat, some are thin, some are clever, some are dim .....

So I think what we would be looking for, as a comparison, is a common ancestor for all bats....

[Digit]

Right so now we move on to a more diverse arrangment and compare morphology. What about Bees and Wasps?

[Ishtar]

Hmmm.... not sure about bees and wasps. I think I'm right in saying that bats are mammals, whereas bees are insects ...

[Digit]

But Bees and Wasps do have a common ancestor, a well establish progress shown in the fossil record. Wasps came first, Bees developed after the arrival of flowering plants.
My point is that you accept morphology in the case of Bats but not Humans and Chimps. Even genetics place the Chimp as our nearest relative, but, as I pointed out earlier neither Humans nor Chimps were around at the time of separation, therefore a common ancestor is the only logical answer.
Refusal of that view is basically a denial of logical reasoning, assuming that the genetic info is correct.

[Ishtar]

But Bees and Wasps do have a common ancestor, a well establish progress shown in the fossil record. Wasps came first, Bees developed after the arrival of flowering plants.
My point is that you accept morphology in the case of Bats but not Humans and Chimps. Even genetics place the Chimp as our nearest relative, but, as I pointed out earlier neither Humans nor Chimps were around at the time of separation, therefore a common ancestor is the only logical answer.
Refusal of that view is basically a denial of logical reasoning, assuming that the genetic info is correct.

Hang on...I think you're running with the ball a bit here.

I don't 'accept the morphology in the case of Bats'. I agreed to be shown by you that they all have a common ancestor (which you haven't yet shown me) and then I would reassess my thinking from there.

It would be stretching the point with bees and wasps as they are insects, not mammals.

I'm also not denying that the chimp is the nearest to us genetically - but that doesn't make him a relative unless we can trace our lineage back to the same common ancestor, which we haven't yet been able to do.

Btw - I'm not sure how you can make the point that 'humans and chimps weren't around at the point of separation' when it's yet to be proved if that point exists and, just as importantly, whether it exists?

[Ishtar]

I think it's really funny that everyone around me here thinks I'm working when I'm really talking to you about bats!