Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Dawkins Misunderstood-->Re: A look at the blind watchmaker

Expand Messages
  • t
    Allan, I am glad that you found my comments useful. The best evidence in support of a common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees is the genetic similarities
    Message 1 of 290 , Aug 1, 2010
      Allan,
      I am glad that you found my comments useful.
      The best evidence in support of a common ancestor for humans and chimpanzees is the genetic similarities shared by the two species. These similarities are quite considerable - described as about a 95% similarity or greater. The best explanation for such similarities is common ancestry. This ancestry is believed to date from about 5 million years age.
      Human ancestry after that point is complicated and although one will find a number of apparently very certain chronologies, they are of necessity all tentative.

      You might look at:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_evolutionary_genetics

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimpanzee_genome_project

      DeWaal's "Our Inner Ape" is a good book that treats the subject although it include considerable information about social similarities between man and other primates. Shubin's "Our Inner Fish" is a more general treatment of the genetics similarities shared by all species. It is a good book - just skip the paragraph that mentions Hitler.
      On human origins there are a number of popular book one might read: Gibbon's "The First Human" is a good book although it is more of a history of the search for the first human, than a discussion of the science as such - and the title of the work should be "The Search for the First Hominid". Johanson's "Lucy's Legacy" is not really a great book, but the latter part of the text includes some discussion of human origins which is useful and interesting. The first half of the book is Johanson's personal narrative about finding the fossil Lucy and returning to the site after years spent away from it. The story is of interest, Johanson needs a good editor.

      There are a number of other popular or more scientific books that treat the subject of human origins and primate human relations in some detail. The books I have listed are all very easy reads. Aczel's "The Jesuit and the Skull" is also a fine book. It covers far more than just human origins, but it is interesting and very well written.

      Regards,

      Timothy E. Kennelly



      --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "Alan" <alan.catherine@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      >
      > --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "t" <physisvnomos@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Alan,
      > >
      > > I am not surprised that the dunce did not address your question.
      > >
      > > I could spend some time explaining that I do not "know" that the earth is four billion years old, but I constantly speak as if I do; in any case, the best evidence for the age of the earth comes from naturally occurring radioactive materials which are found in three series (uranium-238, thorium-232, and uranium-235) with long half lives and known daughter series with known half lives.
      > > These radiative materials apparently decay at discoverable rates and these rates apparently do not change and have not changed since they formed when the earth was nascent.
      > >
      > <Much useful stuff snipped>
      >
      > Thank you for your information; it was very helpful an really answered my question. So perhaps you can now tell me what evidence backs up your 'belief' that humans and chimpanzees share a common ancestor.
      >
    • __A_YAHOO_USER__
      Message 290 of 290 , Aug 16, 2010
        --- In creationevolutiondebate@yahoogroups.com, "tinroad66" <tinroad66@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > > >> Dear Tin,
        > > >> If we are to stand outside the circle of argument,
        > > >> can we first agree that there is such a thing as intelligence?
        > >
        > > >Tin: Yes.
        > >
        > > :)
        > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
        > > >> If we do, mustn't we also agree that the universe
        > > >> at the very least has the potential for manifesting intelligence
        > > >> through the organisms which develop through its substance
        > >
        > > >> Love, john
        > > >> ***
        > >
        > >
        > > >Tin: I go by evidence. There is no evidence for a supernatual force
        > > >controlling biodiveristy.
        > >
        > > Dear Tin,
        > > the bland evidence is neither here nor there
        >
        >
        > Tin: Nonsense.
        >
        >
        > All adult level conclusions requires evidence. Science in particular can only make conclusions based on the evidence.
        >
        >
        > So you have it backwards rather than being nothing evidence is EVERYTHING. Which is one of the reasons that Huckleberry's conclusions are completely and uttterly without merit.
        >
        >
        > Amazing that anyone would do anything other than laugh at his "articles".
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > >
        > > ... felt moved to belatedly iterate
        > > the original proposition, my friend
        > > rephrased this time as a question:
        > >
        > > from a priori considerations
        > > do you agree that the universe has the potential
        > > for manifesting intelligence through its organisms?
        >
        >
        > Tin: Yes. However, this is a vapid approach to making conclusions. Consider that the
        >
        >
        > 1....... universe has the potential
        > for manifesting MAGIC FAIRY DUST through its organisms
        >
        >
        >
        > 2.....universe has the potential
        > for manifesting THE GREAT PUMPKIN through its organisms
        >
        >
        > 3......universe has the potential
        > for manifesting THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER through its organisms
        >
        >
        >
        > These three added ideas, like yours, like merit because they have no supporting evidence. Adult thinkers requires positive evidence for positive claims. People who believe that the lack of negative evidence makes their religious valid are thinking at a childlike level.
        >
        >
        > Evoluton on the other hand has EVIDENCE.
        >
        >
        >
        > -------Evidence for Evolution---
        >
        > --General Categories of Evidence--
        > 1. the fossil record;
        > 2. biogeography;
        > 3. the nested hierarchy;
        > 4. genetics;
        > 5. directly observed evolution including speciation.
        >
        >
        > --More Specific Evidence--
        > The Fossil Record Order
        > first bacteria below
        > first multicellular organism below
        > first shelled organisms below
        > first insects below
        > first amphibians below
        > first reptiles below
        > first dinosaurs below
        > first birds below
        > first placental mammals below
        > first apes below
        > first hominids
        >
        >
        >
        >
        >
        > the universe has the potential
        > > for manifesting intelligence through its organisms
        >
        >
        > >
        > > Love, john
        > > ***
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.