More Denton: Reply to Tony (Introduction)

by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Friday, July 24, 2015, 22:25 (3410 days ago) @ dhw

DHW: I don't have a problem with the argument that Neanderthals, Denisovans, the Dimanisi hominids and homo sapiens etc, were/are all humans. How does that prove they did not descend from earlier forms of life? -Dismantle the problem one stage at a time. If it is unlikely, and it is, that there was any speciation in the hominid line, how much more unlikely is it that there was speciation between some mythical (never observed, even in fossils) common ancestor into humans and apes.-
> TONY: Similarity does not indicate common descent, that is purely an assumption. 
> 
> 
> DHW: It is a theory, just as the existence of God, and God's separate creation of humans is a theory. (See below on theories and trust.)-Theories require rigorous evidence and testing, not speculation.-->DHW: I don't know of any disagreement over the classification of bananas, fruit flies, or for that matter gorillas and homo sapiens. I thought the problems arose over the classification of the so-called hominids and hominins, but you obviously know more about these things than I do, so perhaps you can put me right.-The disagreement is not over the classification of fruit flies and bananas. Humans are 50% genetically similar to bananas.-http://genecuisine.blogspot.com/2011/03/human-dna-similarities-to-chimps-and.html-The point being that morphological similarity is what moved Darwin to lump us in with Apes. Genetic similarity is used to set the 'evolutionary clock' for species divergence. But if we are 50% genetically similar to bananas, at what point did humans and bananas share a common ancestor. -
> 
> Dhw: You criticize the assumption that “speciation can even occur, though it has NEVER been observed.” But that is the problem. Species exist, and nobody knows how. 
> 
> TONY: The existence of species is not the issue. The assumption that they CAN change between species is the issue, because it has never been observed. Your comment here is akin to saying it would be rational for me to believe in unicorns because horses and narwhals exist.
> 
> DHW: It would only be rational for you to believe in unicorns if we knew that unicorns existed (e.g. if we found a fossil). -True, that would be an 'observation', but we have no observation for common ancestors or even speciation.-
>DHW:The issue is how the diverse species that we do know of came into existence, and all we have are theories, including the theory that there is a supernatural power who created them all separately. I can only repeat that whichever theory you believe in depends on the extent to which you trust the theorists. I wrote: “As I see it, there is currently no reason for me as a layman to challenge the general consensus among scientists that humans came late on the scene, that the genetic similarities between humans and apes and the admittedly sparse but not non-existent fossil record suggest descent from a common ancestor, and that the patterns David talks of are also evidence that organisms derive from earlier organisms.” (Since you mention that speciation has never been observed, perhaps I should add that no-one has ever observed an organism that did not spring from another organism.) You prefer the version of events set out in ancient manuscripts. -Because the version set out in said ancient manuscripts fits the observations more closely. We HAVE observed organisms that "did not spring from another organism". It's called the Cambrian explosion. No precursors. Hell, that is the basis for your entire 'inventive mechanism', to deal with the fact that there are no known precursors.-
 
>DHW: As for your quote from Romans 1-19, I do not interpret it as an instruction to seek evidence. It reads to me as a statement that God has shown how great he is, and anyone who can't see that is an idiot. But there we go again - different people have different interpretations of the same text, and nobody can tell us which one is right!-Well, there is some truth to that. He has shown how good he is, and people that can't see that are a little blind. But, it does mention that the 'evidence' in is what is created. If you want to see the evidence, look at creation and 'Keep digging as if for precious treasure..(Prov 2:4) study animals (Prov 6:6-8). The bible is full of references to studying creation. The one I linked you in Romans said the nature of God is revealed in his creation. I.E. If you want to understand God, you have to study it.

--
What is the purpose of living? How about, 'to reduce needless suffering. It seems to me to be a worthy purpose.