Alternatives to Modern Evolutionary Theory

Both sides are asserting that the facts support their position. How does this get resolved?

To state the obvious once again:

English language words like monkey and ape have definitions which vary depending upon a scientific context versus a more casual usage among the average English speaker who is not a scientist.

If shown a photo of a typical human, the average person surveyed on the street would never say “That’s a monkey” or “That’s an ape”—or even “That’s a primate.” Yet, in the context of a natural history museum in the Hall of Mammals, the same photo might appear with those of related animals under the caption, “The Primate Family.”

2 Likes

One side is ignoring most of the facts.

It’s the same side that falsely claims, “Both sides are looking at the same facts.” Ring any bells?

1 Like

A good start is to recognize the confusion which comes with equivocation fallacies. We must also recognize the differences between denotations (strict definitions) and connotations (idea or even emotions suggested by words beyond their primary meaning.) I would suspect that when @scd objects to classifying humans in the same taxonomic classification as apes or monkeys, he may be concerned that humans not be considered “mere apes” or “mere monkeys” as if the Bible doesn’t assign special spiritual characteristics to humans.

Karl Linnaeus believed that humans were specially endowed by God with unique characteristics (including the Imago Dei) but he didn’t consider this to be in any sort of conflict with recognizing the many shared features which placed all primates in the same family.

2 Likes

What are the set of facts that you believe is most troubling for the theory that humans and chimps share a common ancestor? What are the set of facts that you think are the strongest support of this hypothesis?

I don’t find any of those facts troubling. (Obviously, many other evangelicals find the theory extremely troubling—but you asked specifically for my own viewpoint on this.)

http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils/fossils

3 Likes

How do you explain the emergence of.
-Speech and written language
-Abstract thought and ability to do complex system design
-Skin independent of hair
-Unique splicing codes
-Unique gene expression
-De Novo genes
Without genetic and morphological evidence of the common ancestor.

I don’t explain them. I’m a retired minister and linguist. For such explanations, I look to the experts who have devoted entire lifetimes to answering questions like those.

Likewise, I don’t explain the mathematics behind the discovery of the Higgs Boson—nor even the routine Fourier analyses which makes MRI machines so useful on a daily basis. My inability to adequately explain the complexities of such science in no way diminishes the validity of the underlying physics and the technology depending on that science.

Now, if someone needs explanations of the evolution of modern English from Latin, Anglo-Saxon, and other sources, or a great many types of Biblical exegesis complexities, I can be far more useful with those topics.

3 Likes

Fair enough. Lets see if the experts attempt to explain them.

By the way, that is a misleading clause. The sequenced genomes of Homo sapiens and a great many other primates provides lots of evidence for the common ancestor. Also, morphological evidence of the common ancestor has been compiled by scientists from long before either you or I were born.

3 Likes

So you think the evidence supports the common ancestor containing both human and chimp characteristics. How do we know which ones?

i think that its depend on a personal definition rather then objective one.

Would you pay attention and engage if any did so?

Let’s imagine for a moment—just for the sake of this discussion—that no scientist on the planet had any detailed explanation for some of those phenomenon. Are you implying that that would somehow negate the enormous piles of evidence for humans and other primates sharing a common ancestor?

I would also pose the question much more broadly: Do scientists have to answer every related question before a scientific theory is considered well-evidenced and compelling?

3 Likes

as i said: i think that its depend on a personal definition. unless you can show me otherwise.

Absolutely as long as the engagement contains facts and arguments and not just appeal to authority.

1 Like

(1) Did you read the linked material I posted?

(2) “So you think the evidence supports the common ancestor containing both human and chimp characteristics.” is a false statement. I never made such a claim. Indeed, if you had read the linked material and had even a very rudimentary understanding of evolutionary processes, you would not assume that a common ancestor somehow “contains” the characteristics of all descendant species!

2 Likes

Science needs to show their hypothesis is supported by a high level of confidence. The claim implies that a lot of features resulted from reproduction alone. This is not a trivial claim. It requires support.

John Harshman claims that common descent is independent of mechanism so if this is the case I cannot really challenge the claim. This is very different then the version of evolution I was taught in school (natural selection was the mechanism) and actually is not in conflict with Behe’s claims.

I have taken a brief look at it. Thanks for the citation,

I’m not sure I follow what you are saying. Michael Behe accepts the evidence for Common Descent in evolutionary biology.

2 Likes