You've been warned*I'm not sure I have what it takes to be an apologist (and I never wanted to be one; just another Christian who wants to defend their faith) but I seemed to have become one when a member of my family decided to descend into the crowded depths of atheism. I've been dealing with this for several months now, and it's tiring. The circular reasoning, the complete disregard for laws of logic, the convenient denials
I don't think I have the "umph" to deal with such irrationality and displaced anger. It's causing problems. The attitude is so militant, it's shocking. I haven't seen this person take such passion in something in many, many years over anything. It makes me wonder if there's something else that's underneath it all...I digress. Have any of you had experiences like this?I sent this to a few people on the board a while ago, though I think it's probably best to share with everyone, because I think the more minds we have in on this, the better. It's quite a load to filter through, so I know it will take time, and I am in no way qualified to analyze this appropriately (and this person who analyzed it isn't either but clearly believes they are).
I've even invited this respondent to partake on the board, but to no avail. It's sad when they won't just ask "live" questions with people who have done this for a long time, and simply discredit them by saying "they're biased if they're on a board about God"...and atheists aren't biased when they're on a forum trying to disprove God?
It's tragic, really.I will shorten the response article to the first line for reference sake only. I suggest pulling the reply up on another page for the full paragraphs which have been answered. I had to laugh at the introductory comment. I guess everyone here is just lying through their teeth or don't know what they're talking about!
Article brief's in green. Respondent's comments in red.
After reading the essay response:
well, this IS interesting. I don't understand these people, there is really only 3 possibilities. They're either lying through their teeth and know the BS that they spew, which makes them immoral. They're willfully ignorant of the topic which they are trying to use to prove their ideas that can't be proven, or they simply can't understand what they're writing. I'll take this apart piecemeal.
Introduction...The current theory of human evolution states that modern humans evolved from more primitive bipedal hominids....The beginning of trouble - lack of genetic diversity among modern humans...As evolutionists studied humans and species of apes in the 1970's and 1980's, some rather surprising information was being discovered that distinguished us from apes and other primates...
This couldn't be more incorrect. There is a great amount of diversity within the human race, looking at the sources for this the only thing they site is from 1995...8 years before the human genome project was completed.
So yeah, it's not surprising that at the time we had less knowledge of genetics and diversity. But ignoring 16 years of scientific study is just plain sad and again, they're either immoral and lying or simply don't want to see the truth here. In fact the area with the greatest genetic diversity is a tribe in Africa which adds more weight to mankind originating there and migrating out, and using mutations in the human genome they've been able to trace back, to some degree, the route that early man took in migration. Also, a group of individuals that stays in one area will have greater genetic diversity than if the population migrates while leaving some behind, hence why the African tribes have more genetic diversity than the rest of the world. So it's not wonder that apes that have been stationary for millions of years will have more genetic diversity than the human race.
Didn't a prominent individual from the genome project convert...Collins, was it? Oh, God's humor. I love it.
Still more trouble - Discontinuous morphological changes in the hominid lineage...Paleontological discoveries and geochronology show that the pattern of morphological change in the hominid fossil record was not progressive, but abrupt (6).
*I recognized the "hypotheticus" argument instantly. Tragic.
Again, this shows a distinct lack of knowledge about evolution in general. It's been noted for some time now that evolution tends to happen relatively rapidly at times and then slows massively at others. This is because evolution occurs much more rapidly in a high stress environment, example: Say we have a hypothetical animal...we'll call it a hypotheticus! so we have our hypotheticus and the species is living and doing well for hundreds or thousands of years. During this time they undergo natural mutations which creates genetic drift within the population, that is mutations that don't confer any significant benefit or detriment to the animals survival. Some of them are more hairy than others, some of them have slightly longer necks, some have longer and tougher claws, and some remain generally the same. Then the weather changes massively, for our little example we'll have a sharp drop in temperature, possible an ice age or w/e. So immediately the hypotheticus' with the more hair have a strong advantage over the others in the new habitat, over time they will continue to grow more and more hairy to better survive in this habitat, possibly changing eating habits slowly as well. So despite the population remaining stable with only slight genetic drift for a long time the pressure causes the remaining hypotheticus to either end up dying out or move. We can continue this by having the hypotheticus that aren't able to withstand that cold temperatures move to a new environment, however this one is rather dry and arid, think African savannahs. So basically you have trees with leaves that only the hypotheticus with the slightly longer neck is able to reach, again over time natural selection will enhance this trait like it did with the hairy ones, the longer neck that the animal has the more possibility of being able to eat well and therefore reproduce. However, the hypotheticus with the long claws isn't completely screwed here, turns out there are roots underground that their long claws allow them to reach and consume, again natural selection will accentuate this trait over time. So now we have 3 distinct species from one in an entirely realistic scenario. Naturally it can be and is far more complex than this and different traits can be accentuated simultaneously and whatnot. But the fact remains that populations that are not under pressure tend to remain stable for long periods until some external pressure increases the effect of natural selection.
Another problem - too many deleterious mutations...A recent study examined the mutation rate for humans. Using "conservative assumptions" the authors found that the overall mutation rates was 4.2 mutations per person per generation, with a deleterious rate of 1.6 (11). When using more realistic assumptions the overall mutation rate for humans become 6.7 with a deleterious rate of 3.1. Such a high rate should have resulted in extinction of our species long ago.
This is one of the most ridiculous claims I've heard yet, up there with the idea that the earth's magnetic field is weakening and that if you trace it back more than 20,000 years or so it would've liquidated the planet from the heat generating (LOL). The first problem is that it implies some kind of better or more "perfect" human thousands of years ago and that ever since we've just been mutating into something less and eventually dying out. This isn't even how genetics works. Mutations do happen with every person and the great majority of them are completely unnoticeable. They have no effect on the reproductive success of the individual or their offspring for better or worse. It also completely goes against evolutionary theory, they can't on one hand accept the genetics for mutation and then on the other hand reject the genetics of how that mutation is influenced by natural selection. Many mutations are helpful for animals, including humans, there's no overall "decay" that happens. Furthermore if someone was born with some sort of decayed genome(i'm not even sure what that would look like or be...geez this is ludicrous) They would clearly be unlikely to reproduce, keeping the offspring with the overall unharmed genome or even improved genome more likely to reproduce..actually with that statement I realized that they're postulating the reverse of natural selection with this claim...that in the human race, or any species for that matter, the individuals with the more negative mutations would be more likely to reproduce and therefore carry on their damaged genes..AHHHHH the ignorance!!!! These statements really only require a skeptical eye and a high school level understanding of biology and genetics to refute. As I said before, they're either willfully ignorant, lying, or stupid. The sad thing is I really don't think they're stupid or ignorant, which leaves only one. The insane amount of quote mining, lying and general misinterpreting of data and science that anti-evolutionist use causes me to believe that they are doing this kind of stuff on purpose. They use pseudo-science and use big words to make it appear that they are scientific when intelligent design is anything except scientific
"They use pseudo-science and use big words to make it appear that they are scientific when intelligent design is anything except scientific ".
*blink*
*blink*
*blink*
Is anyone else about to rupture their gut from the hilarity of this comment alone? I'm in stitches.
Recent origin of modern humans confirmed through molecular biology...Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA)
Again, this is taking one true statement and twisting it to imply something that the science doesn't. Our most recent common female ancestor did in fact live about 150,000 years ago, but she was just that, our most recent one, not the first one. Indeed, our most recent common male ancestor only lived about 60,000 years ago, so unless Eve and Adam were separated by 90,000 years, this is clearly not the first common ancestor for all mankind, indeed they are the last.
Y-chromosome analysis....In 1995, scientists have examined human origins from the perspective of male genetics (17, 18).90,000-120,000 years ago.
See above, our most recent common ancestor is a lower bound of the total of common ancestors, the upper boundary would be much farther back. This is simply them not understanding the science here...or lying.
Suddenly, something happened. All of the tables and graphs and explanations given in the essay were met with this response:
All of this is completely mute...because neanderthals are known to not be an ancestor of modern man, this isn't a hidden fact and again was taught in my high school biology class. Of course they are going to be genetically different, they're are, in fact a different species than modern man. Rather they are an offshoot from the line, a dead end in evolution so to speak, but not an ancestor at all and certainly not a direct ancestor, anymore than one can say modern apes are ancestors to man.
I'm fairly certain the data presented was to ascertain something alternative to what they just stated...and I'm no expert.
