12 Ways Humans Are NOT Primates - Lloyd Pye

reply to post by JScytale


This is where we differ: I don't think the theory is supported SO WELL as you say. Pretty much of it sounds like conjecture or, dogma for lack of definitive proof. I wouldn't put "the earth revolving around the sun" on the same level as evolution. Too different of a subject I think!

reply to post by InfaRedMan


heheh. my point is we are monumentally lucky to have survived that catastrophe. 5,000 people worldwide is such a tremendously tiny number. That is less people than you see walking around in an american mall.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by theufologist


then you quite obviously have no idea on the sheer scope of the evidence supporting evolution, let alone the fact that it makes predictions that end up being true.

tbh the only cure for this would probably be a full 4 year college curriculum focusing on evolutionary biology if youre this deep set in your convictions.

reply to post by JScytale


Probably. I wouldn't mind changing my mind (sorry for the word game). Until now I haven't because I have not been presented convincing material.

reply to post by theufologist


some of the evidence is so simple and so obvious that it is simply beyond me how people can deny evolution.

take the example i have used before.

why in the hell do whales and dolphins have toes and breathe air?

logically they weren't always marine mammals.

speaking from an intelligent design standpoint - it is quite simply idiotic to make an animal you are designing to live in the ocean breathe air and have feet complete with toes, while neglecting to include these features in every single other animal that lives in the ocean. Either god is far from all-knowing and is absolutely not perfect, or the intelligent designers had simply no idea what they were doing.

And of course you can study the whale genome and see how blatantly they are related to land mammals.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by JScytale


I can agree with you on that (the creatures living in the ocean). I don't dismiss evolution totally, but I also see intelligent design in it. For obvious and self-evident reasons (DNA, etc...you name it).

As lame as it may sound though, I also think the reason for the world being as it is may well surprise us...yes, my "creator" may be imperfect. (I don't believe much in a "christian god"). Living creature may as well be technology. With defects and imperfections. (I think I'm going to write something about it. It'll end in the "Skunk Works" section, of course! )

So, as i see it, Pye may be, to some extent, right. I'm not questioning about his exaggerations and/or imprecisions.

reply to post by theufologist


the thing is, i don't see how you could logically hold evolution to be true but believe that any animals were designed, because evolutionary theory can explain every single adaptation readily and easily, and provide evidence to back it up. the only point in which the idea of a designer is even remotely logical is in the origin, or creation of DNA. The details on how it started are still a little fuzzy. Is it the most likely scenario? FAR from it. Is it logical to assume it is possible? Yes.

basically I consider the idea of a supernatural (or super-technological) guiding force throughout the history of life to be pretty laughable. I also consider the idea of an originating force to be logical, but unlikely.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by JScytale]

This is all about ego and hubris, seriously.

If we can't be 'god's special little flower' then we're part Alien, special and otherworldly.

Because "gasp" how dare anyone imply that we're mere ANIMALS. And to be related to an APE? It offends because 'we' don't want to admit that we're not all that special and the mirror that the ape represents makes us uncomfortable.

reply to post by Jadette


I really don't get why some people find it scary or even insulting to realize that we are animals. It is simultaneously humbling, exhilarating and beautiful.

reply to post by JScytale


OK, I respect that, but I'm afraid we will never get along on this subject.

You know, I think that the "creator" possibility is far from being laughable. To me it looks like the most seriuos explanation to reality, but I think (with respect due) that most people are scared to death when facing it and they tend to sway. But i know that it's just my opinion.

That said, I may change my mind, one day..

reply to post by theufologist


hi - attempting to replace evolutionary development with the notion of " inteligent design " quickly shows the " inteligence " to be sadly lacking

as you were discusing whales - please compare them to the filter feeding sharks [ basking shark / whale shark ] both the filter feeding shaks - and the whales have developed a very similar feeding pattern - and mouth organs

but have arrived at such a similar niche from opposite ends of the spectrum

filterfeeding sharks evolving from fishes

whales being aquatic mammals - with evolutionary links back to the wolfs ancestors

not looking so inteligent now is it ?

NO amount of Evidence is EVER going to change the mind of someone who, in having to Accept Evolution could possibly have to let go of the Premise that they have a God watching out for them and live forever in Heaven after death.

For some people accepting Evolution will shatter their belief in God. If God did not create them than maybe others things are not true about God also. At that point the possibility opens up for there not existing a soul and an afterlife not existing.

Once you let in just a little bit of Science than you will let in a WHOLE lot more.

Stick to Faith and Magic 100% or the whole house of cards could fall.

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


I am an atheist and I honestly disagree.

Even the Roman Catholic Church has acknowledged evolution.

www.newadvent.org...

2. I am pleased with the first theme you have chosen, that of the origins of life and evolution, an essential subject which deeply interests the Church, since revelation, for its part, contains teaching concerning the nature and origins of man. How do the conclusions reached by the various scientific disciplines coincide with those contained in the message of revelation? And if, at first sight, there are apparent contradictions, in what direction do we look for their solution? We know, in fact, that truth cannot contradict truth (cf. Leo XIII, encyclical Providentissimus Deus). Moreover, to shed greater light on historical truth, your research on the Church's relations with science between the 16th and 18th centuries is of great importance. During this plenary session, you are undertaking a "reflection on science at the dawn of the third millennium," starting with the identification of the principal problems created by the sciences and which affect humanity's future. With this step you point the way to solutions which will be beneficial to the whole human community. In the domain of inanimate and animate nature, the evolution of science and its applications give rise to new questions. The better the Church's knowledge is of their essential aspects, the more she will understand their impact. Consequently, in accordance with her specific mission she will be able to offer criteria for discerning the moral conduct required of all human beings in view of their integral salvation.

3. Before offering you several reflections that more specifically concern the subject of the origin of life and its evolution, I would like to remind you that the magisterium of the Church has already made pronouncements on these matters within the framework of her own competence. I will cite here two interventions.

In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII had already stated that there was no opposition between evolution and the doctrine of the faith about man and his vocation, on condition that one did not lose sight of several indisputable points.

For my part, when I received those taking part in your academy's plenary assembly on October 31, 1992, I had the opportunity with regard to Galileo to draw attention to the need of a rigorous hermeneutic for the correct interpretation of the inspired word. It is necessary to determine the proper sense of Scripture, while avoiding any unwarranted interpretations that make it say what it does not intend to say. In order to delineate the field of their own study, the exegete and the theologian must keep informed about the results achieved by the natural sciences (cf. AAS 85 1/81993 3/8, pp. 764-772; address to the Pontifical Biblical Commission, April 23, 1993, announcing the document on the The Interpretation of the Bible in the Church: AAS 86 1/81994 3/8, pp. 232-243).

4. Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis considered the doctrine of "evolutionism" a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l'encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l'évolution plus qu'une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory.

What is the significance of such a theory? To address this question is to enter the field of epistemology. A theory is a metascientific elaboration, distinct from the results of observation but consistent with them. By means of it a series of independent data and facts can be related and interpreted in a unified explanation. A theory's validity depends on whether or not it can be verified; it is constantly tested against the facts; wherever it can no longer explain the latter, it shows its limitations and unsuitability. It must then be rethought.

Furthermore, while the formulation of a theory like that of evolution complies with the need for consistency with the observed data, it borrows certain notions from natural philosophy.

And, to tell the truth, rather than the theory of evolution, we should speak of several theories of evolution. On the one hand, this plurality has to do with the different explanations advanced for the mechanism of evolution, and on the other, with the various philosophies on which it is based. Hence the existence of materialist, reductionist and spiritualist interpretations. What is to be decided here is the true role of philosophy and, beyond it, of theology.

It's really just up to the nutters that take the bible 100% literally to realize that religion is about the message and not the words, and that science provides an excellent understanding of the natural world.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by JScytale]

Originally posted by TurkeyBurgers
NO amount of Evidence is EVER going to change the mind of someone who, in having to Accept Evolution could possibly have to let go of the Premise that they have a God watching out for them and live forever in Heaven after death.

For some people accepting Evolution will shatter their belief in God. If God did not create them than maybe others things are not true about God also. At that point the possibility opens up for there not existing a soul and an afterlife not existing.

Once you let in just a little bit of Science than you will let in a WHOLE lot more.

Stick to Faith and Magic 100% or the whole house of cards could fall.

Not true. Many people who believe in evolution find it to be no leap to encompass the idea of divinity as well. While stunch athiest would prefer otherwise, and the pure literal creationist would hate it, there are many people who can and do manage to find no contradiction in not understanding everything. Still be willing to examine the works of God and know that we and our ancestors merely couldn't understand the total amazing nature of this Universe we live in. But we're all still willing to accept what is obvious and wonder about the complexity of what has been given to us.

Evolution is obvious. Those who demote what God/Gods/Devine/Animastic Universe are capable of, reduce what God is to their own immensely limited understanding. They think God can only do what they can understand.

[edit on 2009/7/30 by Aeons]

reply to post by JScytale


You are talking about the same church that condemns the Use of a Condom because a "Soul" is magically created at conception (with zero experimental evidence to support this claim)? The one who would rather have millions of people in Africa spread the plague of AIDS than slap on a jimmy hat? That Catholic Church? Or a different one?

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


I'm not saying the catholic church is an organization people should trust as a source of truth. I was merely illustrating that the leader of the world's dominant religion in no way considers evolution and religion to be incompatible. I honestly have to agree. Like I said, I am an atheist - but the greatest scientist I have ever known (a truly gifted physics teacher, bona-fide genius, who had the extraordinarily rare talent of being able to share his enthusiasm for the universe and how amazing it is with students) was a devoutly religious man.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by JScytale]

reply to post by Aeons


Ok let me change what I said to SOME people. Not ALL Religious believers will find it hard to accept Evolution but SOME will. The ones who argue that the Earth is 6,000 years old because it says so in the Bible type of people. I certainly did not mean to say ALL people of religious faith but there are a GREAT MANY religious people who have a difficult time of accepting Evolution because it DIRECTLY contradicts their interpretation of Creation according to the Bible.

SOME not ALL. Does that work better?

reply to post by TurkeyBurgers


sure. didn't mean to offend.
I have always considered people who take the bible literally to be almost scary in their closed-mindedness and refusal to accept evidence. That form of religion is quite honestly a disease.

reply to post by JScytale


I always like the argument that the greatest Scientists are devoutly religious.

What a conflict they must have. How many tricks of the mind must they use on themselves to convince themselves?

To use the Scientific Method to determine if statements carry weight and if experiment can verify test result and then at the very same time throw everything that they have learned (possible 20 years of education?) into the garbage can in an instant in an effort to support claims of religion.

To say "I see how the Universe works because of Science" and also to say "I see how my Faith works because I ignore Science" is such a mystery for me. Science is what I used to determine if my own Faith was truthful. I guess some people will use Science up to a point, the point of it conflicting with faith and then just walk right around it and pretend it does not exist.

[edit on 30-7-2009 by TurkeyBurgers]

reply to post by theufologist


God does not HAVE to be a transcendent, anthropomorphic intelligent entity with a suspicious interest in our moral affairs. My point is that theism and a conviction to science do not have to be mutually exclusive. However the idea of a 'creator' is a result of the anthropomorphism of Deity; we create things, we make things, we build things, in our mundane perception we understand the process of cause and effect as it pertains to creation and destruction, and thus we project these human characteristics of creation within the framework of causality upon a Deity and come to the conclusion that something beyond and greater than ourselves *MUST* have created us, this is the only way we can understand it, but still, it is an anthropomorphism.

All that evolution did was to remove the neccessity for a transcendent creator of individual species, for it was shown that species could arise due to the intricate interplay of natural forces; there was no need for any outside influence. The conviction to the idea of a creation is valid, albeit in the face of absolutely overwhelming evidence for the veracity of the origin of species due to natural selection it would be extreme intellectual folly to continue to advocate the idea of a 6000 year old earth upon which God created and placed individual species, fully formed, unchanging and irreducibly complex.

Theodosius Dobzhansky once exclaimed that 'Nothing makes sense in biology except in the light of evolution'. This is a profoundly true statement and understanding exactly what he meant helps explain why evolution has achieved almost dogmatic status amongst scientists. Imagine a very large and complex crossword puzzle, you have been at it for many months and you have filled in many words, these words have allowed you to fill in other words and although you are making progress and many of the words you have filled in seem to be correct, there is still a good chance that they could be wrong. There is one long word space that runs right from the top left corner down to the bottom right, providing a letter for many many other word spaces, whose spaces then provide the letters for many more word spaces, eventually covering all words in the grid. You have been studying the clue for weeks, and you have tried various answers, although for each word you've tried the rest of the grid just doesn't make sense. Then all of a sudden one day you get it, you fill in the word from top left to bottom right, and suddenly everything fits, everything makes sense, and from hereon you are able to make great progress towards completing the crossword. THIS is exactly what the theory of evolution is like for biology.

The Universe itself, the genesis of life, the true nature of reality, all these are mysteries; humans need mystery. The invocation of God to explain the creation of species is, if you think about it, the result of the origin of species being a mystery. However since the mid-nineteenth century it has no longer been a mystery, and the whole creationism, young earth theory, irreducible complexity saga is due to the mystics refusing to acknowledge the loss of one of their mysteries. But like I said, the Universe itself, the genesis of life, the true nature of reality, and many, many others, are still potent and enduring mysteries. So for the true theist, please, lend your attention to these true mysteries and allow evolution and speciation to rest in the domain of science.