Man and Ape ancestry outline please
Man and Ape ancestry outline please
Could someone break down a quick outline of why Human/ape ancestry isn't fact. Just need it for quick informational purposes.Thanks.
- Kurieuo
- Honored Member
- Posts: 10038
- Joined: Thu Aug 05, 2004 6:25 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Progressive Creationist
- Location: Qld, Australia
Re: Man and Ape ancestry outline please
Shouldn't the onus of proof be on those making the claim?Swimmy wrote:Could someone break down a quick outline of why Human/ape ancestry isn't fact. Just need it for quick informational purposes.Thanks.
- August
- Old School
- Posts: 2402
- Joined: Wed Dec 29, 2004 7:22 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: Texas
- Contact:
Re: Man and Ape ancestry outline please
Because:Swimmy wrote:Could someone break down a quick outline of why Human/ape ancestry isn't fact. Just need it for quick informational purposes.Thanks.
1. The common ancestor has not been found.
2. The interpretation of the genetic "evidence" is question-begging.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
//www.omnipotentgrace.org
//christianskepticism.blogspot.com
- zoegirl
- Old School
- Posts: 3927
- Joined: Thu Mar 22, 2007 3:59 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Female
- Creation Position: Day-Age
- Location: east coast
Re: Man and Ape ancestry outline please
NOt to mention that all of the outlines are rather messy....they don't have a clear idea of the ancestors.
"And we take captive every thought to make it obedient to Jesus Christ"
- jlay
- Ultimate Member
- Posts: 3613
- Joined: Fri Feb 13, 2009 2:47 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Young-Earth Creationist
Re: Man and Ape ancestry outline please
Look up the definition of fact, and the definition of opinion and you'd probably have all the evidence you need.
Making clever drawings with lines connecting one creature to another is not fact. "But look, this line connecting Austra-whoever to Homowhoever." Man made lines are not facts.
Making clever drawings with lines connecting one creature to another is not fact. "But look, this line connecting Austra-whoever to Homowhoever." Man made lines are not facts.
-“The Bible treated allegorically becomes putty in the hands of the exegete.” John Walvoord
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
"I'm not saying scientists don't overstate their results. They do. And it's understandable, too...If you spend years working toward a certain goal and make no progress, of course you are going to spin your results in a positive light." Ivellious
-
- Valued Member
- Posts: 403
- Joined: Wed Jan 14, 2009 11:39 pm
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Day-Age
Re: Man and Ape ancestry outline please
Hey Swimmy,
1) Fossils and DNA tell two different evolutionary stories. Which are you going to believe? Virtually all "evidence" for evolution comes from fossils, yet DNA is the new big thing in evolution. These two papers do not leave much hope for human evolutionary research.
This study took two groups of living primates, each group being made up of different kinds of primates. An evolutionary tree was made for each group based on their morphology (skulls, teeth, etc). Then an evolutionary tree was produced for each group based on their DNA. The evolutionary trees based on bones disagreed with the ones based on DNA. This was the case for both groups.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/5003.f ... 39a924d3ae
As the story goes, our closest relative should be the chimp, but this study shows otherwise. Again, the bones and DNA do not match. DNA says chimp, but the bones say orangutan.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084304.htm
2) "Junk DNA" in the wrong place and pointing to the wrong relatives.
Endogenous retroviruses are assumed to be evidence for evolution. ERVs in humans should be closely related to chimps. Here are some quotes from a research paper:
All 299 of these "insertions" look to be non-orthologous even though some are found in similar positions.
3) "Junk" DNA is being found to have more and more functions, so the evolutionary claim that it is left over junk from evolution is making less and less sense. Here is a link to many articles. http://www.reasons.org/siteSearch/node/?keys=junk+DNA
4) Non-random insertions of "Junk DNA." This points away from common ancestry being the reason for common junk being found in different species.
http://www.reasons.org/junk-dna-hotspot ... ging-blues
http://www.reasons.org/junk-dna-hotspot ... ent-design
5) Chromosome 2 is not strong evidence for a human/chimp relationship.
http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-03.pdf
6) The fossil record does not show any clear relationships between the hominids.
1) Fossils and DNA tell two different evolutionary stories. Which are you going to believe? Virtually all "evidence" for evolution comes from fossils, yet DNA is the new big thing in evolution. These two papers do not leave much hope for human evolutionary research.
This study took two groups of living primates, each group being made up of different kinds of primates. An evolutionary tree was made for each group based on their morphology (skulls, teeth, etc). Then an evolutionary tree was produced for each group based on their DNA. The evolutionary trees based on bones disagreed with the ones based on DNA. This was the case for both groups.
http://www.pnas.org/content/97/9/5003.f ... 39a924d3ae
As the story goes, our closest relative should be the chimp, but this study shows otherwise. Again, the bones and DNA do not match. DNA says chimp, but the bones say orangutan.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/20 ... 084304.htm
2) "Junk DNA" in the wrong place and pointing to the wrong relatives.
Endogenous retroviruses are assumed to be evidence for evolution. ERVs in humans should be closely related to chimps. Here are some quotes from a research paper:
Reporting on research in 2005 found another problem for ERVs:by studying the population dynamics of complete copies of primate endogenous retrovirus family K (ERV-K) in the genomes of humans, chimpanzee and rhesus monkey, a surprising pattern was observed....being published this week on PLoS ONE revealed that human ERV-K had a similar demographic signature to that of the rhesus monkey, both differing greatly from that of the chimpanzee.
http://biology.plosjournals.org/perlser ... 30110&ct=1What researchers don't understand is why the virus affected the ancestors of chimps, gorillas, and Old World monkeys, but didn't affect the ancestors of humans or of Asian apes like orangutans and gibbons.
All 299 of these "insertions" look to be non-orthologous even though some are found in similar positions.
3) "Junk" DNA is being found to have more and more functions, so the evolutionary claim that it is left over junk from evolution is making less and less sense. Here is a link to many articles. http://www.reasons.org/siteSearch/node/?keys=junk+DNA
4) Non-random insertions of "Junk DNA." This points away from common ancestry being the reason for common junk being found in different species.
http://www.reasons.org/junk-dna-hotspot ... ging-blues
http://www.reasons.org/junk-dna-hotspot ... ent-design
5) Chromosome 2 is not strong evidence for a human/chimp relationship.
http://www.reasons.org/files/ezine/ezine-2010-03.pdf
6) The fossil record does not show any clear relationships between the hominids.