Need help tearing down creationist.

The answer is that humans didn't descend from monkeys--both (along with everything else) have evolved from earlier life forms--and there has been no cataclysmic or environmental or predatory event to make monkeys extinct. That answers the monkey question, but has no bearing on Creationism itself.

That has been shown to be wrong recently. The supposed chain of human evolution is broken near the top and not the bottom.

You used to see pictures of a sort of a sequence starting with monkeys, and then increasingly modern hominids, and finally modern humans. Nonetheless, recent DNA tests on neanderthal remains have ruined that picture.

Scientists are now generally agreed that there is too great a genetic gulf between ourselves and the neanderthal for us to be descended from the neanderthal, at least via any process resembling evolution. Moreover, this finding more or less explains the curious lack of interbreeding between our own ancestors and neanderthals which was noted in one of the issues of Discover Magazine for 95 (James Shreeve's "The Neanderthal Peace"). That had been a big mystery prior to the DNA tests. There was evidence of neanderthals and modern humans living in close proximity to modern humans for long periods of time and absolutely no evidence of interbreeding and, naturally, in order to be descended from something, at some point, you have to be able to interbreed with the something. All of that cleanly rules out the neanderthal as a plausible ancestor for modern man.

In fact, DNA tests have now been done on the La Chapelle neanderthals which included one child skeleton which a couple of scientists had thought might be an intermediate type of some sort, and it turns out it was just another neanderthal:

http://www.plosbiology.org/plosonline/?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.0020080

The problem (for evolutionites) is, that all other hominids are further removed from us THAN the neanderthal, and more primitive than the neanderthal. That leaves no plausible candidate for an ancestor for modern man. You'd need some hominid closer to us in both time and morphology than the neanderthal, and his remains and works would be all over the map if he had ever existed.

That leave three basic choices:

• Modern man was created from scratch, and recently.
  
• Modern man was imported from elsewhere in the cosmos.
  
• Modern man was derived from the neanderthal via some process more
  resembling genetic engineering than evolution.
  

The answer is that humans didn't descend from monkeys--both (along with everything else) have evolved from earlier life forms--and there has been no cataclysmic or environmental or predatory event to make monkeys extinct. That answers the monkey question, but has no bearing on Creationism itself.

Evolutionites do not want to face this one. They've gone on trying to claim that both we and the neanderthal were descended from some more remote ancestor generally given to be homo heidelbergensis
i.e. a late form of erectus, but that's basically inane. It's like claiming that dogs could not be descended from wolves and must therefore have descended directly from fish.

??? There is NO evidence that human beings were created from scratch in their present form. Or monkeys for that matter. Humans and monkeys descended from earlier life forms. That is not disputable.

I didn't specify what those life forms were (since I don't think anybody knows that). It is probable that they do share a common ancester somewhere back there but then in all likelihood so does everything else.

And none of those facts in any way supports or disputes Creationism.

Ogionik-Why bother? The entire concept is so absurd that there is no reason for you to become defensive about it.

I have a relative who belongs to a group that IMO is a hairsbreadth from being a cult. One day he started on me. I looked him straight in the eye and said that if he would stop attempting to discuss his religion, I would not discuss my philosophy of life with him. We shook hands, and the issue has never come up again.

Whom is this person who is bothering you? Is he a friend, a relative? Is he someone that you can't easily avoid, like a roommate?

If it were me, I would simply tell him that I have no interest in discussing the subject with him. If he persists, I would simply walk away.

Remember, by debating the subject with him, you are giving the subject respect that it does not deserve.

ros has done plenty of that which explains why he's all fuddled. Brick walls do that when you continually bang your head against them as ros does. In fact he's so fuddled he has lost the capacity to stop.

<snort>

Nah!. It's still alive and kicking. It thrives best on Wall St and in Media.

The idea gets lost in verbiage sometimes... The neanderthal has been shown to be too far removed for us to be descended from him and all other hominids were FURTHER removed from us THAN the neanderthal. That leave nothing on the planet which we could plausibly be descended from, at least via any process resembling evolution.

And what exactly is wrong with proceeding through life in that manner from an evolutionist point of view. Everybody knows chess players are wimps.

It's what a football team tries to do in every game isn't it.

It's a nice metaphor for Wall Street denizens though I must admit.

Why are you evolutionists not praising them and suggesting that more females be sent their way to help improve the human stock along the lines you approve of for the obvious reason.

By heck--you lads are really mixed up. Just remember that every time you have a derogatory thought or utterence about fat-cat bankers, Media moguls or lawyers you become a laughing stock. If you're not aware of that you must not have a sense of humour. Scientists never have.

I love defending that bunch in the pub and there are plenty of opportunities.

I know that is taught in some fundamentalist camps, Gunga, and I respect your beliefs, but I think that concept is most likely wrong. In our lifetime, or at least mine, I can recognize that humankind continues to evolve--humans are taller and heavier than they were on average when I was born, though essentially the same sort of critter. But if even that much has changed in less than a century, is there any basis to believe that there have not been significant changes over mega millenia? Was the neanderthal a different species who, like modern humans and apes, took a different track when he evolved from some common root event/ancester? It is possible, yes. Probable? No because of the relatively short period involved.

But whatever any of us believe about how it all came about, there is no basis in any of it that makes any kind of argument for or against Creationism.

gunga love,

Can you not see that you are helping them to win the argument. They love you. I'll bet you're not on Ignore. No sir. You are the fertile soil from which they grow. Your posts turn not a hair on their heads. They get them salivating.

wow, foxy!! i have a new layer of respect for you. seriously. i've never considered you an evangelical type, but many of our discussions led me to believe that you took a more literal view of the bible.

and, if we can agree that the creator initiated the (current?) big bang and then went hands-off we might have further agreement.

good for you!

That's also wrong. Most fundamentalists and the AIG crowd believe that the neanderthal was merely a distinct subspecies or race, and that is clearly wrong as well. Neanderthal DNA is generally described as about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee. Any two humans, male and female of whatever race and able to have children, could have children together; a human and a neanderthal could not.

You wanna bet?

Boy, you really got my attention with that one. "...[A] human and a neanderthal could not" have children together? W here'd you get that one? There is hardly any concensus of opinion among anthropologists over whether or not Neanderthals interbred with Homo sapiens. It follows, then, that it is assumed they could have if they wished to. See, for example, the most recent issue of National Geographic magazine (October, 2008). It's probably available online.

Don't bother folks. Just go in a busy pub.

Well I didn't say they could have children together (though I honestly never thought about that.) Nor did I say that the Neanderthal was the same species as homo sapien. But I do accept that the scientific evidence is strong that the human species did evolve from some component of the Neanderthal species. When I alluded to fundamentalist beliefs, I meant that some fundamentalists do not accept the evolution of modern humankind from more primitive species and, while I respect that belief, I do not share it. In any case in this discussion it doesn't really matter.

What matters is that whatever you believe about the evolution of man (or anything else) it does not prove or disprove Creationism.

I can't imagine any post of mine made ever that would support me taking a literal view of the Bible though I do teach that some parts can be taken more literally than others. I am probably more evangelical than not, but I am not and have never been a fundamentalist.

But alas, I am also not a Deist. I believe that if there was a big bang, the Creator packed the explosives and lit the fuse (metaphorically speaking) and that He has continued to be involved in His creation. So we will just have to continue to agree to disagree on that one.

Obviously. An all powerful ( don't tell me what I can or can't do) God could have created the whole thing 5 minutes ago with all the memories intact and the credit crunch at this very interesting stage and CERN at an expensive standstill.

Yup, I believe that too Spendi. I just think it more likely that He chose a much longer miracle to perform.