Monday, November 10, 2008

It's the other way around!

The common belief that evolutionary theory states that humans came from chimps, is a misunderstanding of the way evolution works. It would be equally valid (ie. not valid) to say,

"Humans didn't come from chimps. Chimps came from humans."

5 comments:

Sam said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sam said...

Chimps and humans came from a common ancestor ~5 million years ago.

Admin said...

Exactly.

PhillyChief said...

So check this:
"after humans separated from their common ancestor ... chimpanzees."

I'd love to read the original source. I would hope this is the reporter's error, omitting key bits in that "...", and not what the report is saying.

Schnoodle said...

Saying that man did not come from the chimps but rather both came from a common ancestor is semantics at best. What the creationists mean is that evolution teaches that man evolved from a lower primate. Stating that man did not evolve directly from the monkey does not invalidate the creationist position that man did not evolve from any primate, no matter what the primate is called. In the aspect of simpler life forms “evolving” into more complex ones it violates some important scientific laws. The first and foremost is that of entropy. Everything and I do mean everything, moves from usable to unusable states. That is everything is in a state of degradation. So to accept the proposition that everything “evolved” I must suspend the “observable”, which by the way is the foundation of all scientific study, and accept the unobservable. That is, I must concede that the scientific laws do not constrain evolution but they constrain everything else that is observable. I guess the laws were different in the past to allow for evolution to happen because we do not scientifically witness macro-evolution still happening – and don’t waste my time and insult my intelligence by postulating that genetic mutations prove evolution. All genetic mutations are harmful not beneficial, and this cannot account for an increase in genetic information, which would be required for evolution to work. However, instead of baiting an augment over secondary issues, such as the complexity of life, let us get to the heart of the real issue. Whence the first cell? I mean where did the very first living cell come from? And Please!!! Do not insult my intelligence like Richard Dawkins did and postulate the notion that aliens put the first cell here or that the first cell on this planet came from another planet (however you want to word it). His response to Ben Stein was not an answer to Stein’s question; rather it just moved it to a different location and was guilty of infinite regression. Where did the very first living cell come from? And please come up with a logical answer. Louis Pasteur proved that living cells must come from living cells, hence the law of biogenesis. At least Dawkins understood the implications of this law well enough not to postulate the idea that living cells come from nonliving matter. So, where did the first cell come from? Since all contingent beings need a necessary cause, please explain the necessary cause of living cells. For the sake of logic, please be consistent with your worldview. That is, come up with a logical explanation that has the explanatory power to justify were living cells come from, or how living cells can have their origin in nonliving matter.