Common Ancestry a Religious Premise.

[jcrawford]

The fact that neo-Darwinists premise their notions, ideas, concepts and theories about common ancestry and common descent on the biblical story of Adam and Eve is proof enough that evolutionist "theory" is premised on a religious belief and concept to start with.

[jcrawford]

It's pretty well know he began developing his ideas about the origins of
all species during his tenure on the HMS Beagle. His ideas and subsequent
theories about man's origins were derived from his observations in the
Galapagos Islands and the unique creatures he encountered there.

Yes, we know all about that. The simple idea which you gentlemen don't seem able to grasp though, is that the original idea that any species could even possibly have common origins was first suggested in the Bible, and without that common knowledge in Darwin's time, nobody would have known what he was talking about because there would have been no comparable idea to compare it with.

[jcrawford]

The fact that neo-Darwinists premise their notions, ideas, concepts and theories about common ancestry and common descent on the biblical story of Adam and Eve is proof enough that evolutionist "theory" is premised on a religious belief and concept to start with.

Not only is this not a fact, it is the antithesis of neo-darwinian theories.

Not at all, since the African Eve Model was originally premised on comparisons to the Noah's Ark Model.

[micatala]

Even if so, the genealogies in the Bible and the metaphyisical CONCEPT OF common ancestral origins and descent, are original with the Bible and Darwin only used it in his own naturalist speculations ABOUT THE MECHANISMS INVOLVED in common descent. In other words, the original IDEA OF common descent and common ancesty was not original with Darwin even though the IDEA of 'natural selection' was.

Is the concept of common ancestral origins and descent original with the Bible?

I think we have already seen this is not the case.

It is true that the idea of common descent and common ancestry in a general sense is not original with Darwin. I agree.

However, this is different than what you had originally said, which was that Darwin based his idea of common descent on the Biblical idea of common descent.

Now, I would agree it would be difficult to show that Darwin was in no way influenced by his knowledge of the Bible in developing his theory of common descent. A person's mind is, after all, one of his or her most private aspects. However, the burden of proof is on you to show that he DID base his idea on the Biblical idea. It is not enough to simply say that, because the Bible pre-dated Darwin, Darwin must have based his idea on the Bible's. You are simply assuming that this is the case, with no evidence.

In addition, we have indirect evidence based on Darwin's own writings that he based his idea on his observations of the natural world, and not on the Bible.

You have read Darwin's work. Do you find anywhere in his writings any direct indication or acknowledgement that he gleaned his idea of common descent from the geneologies of the Bible?




You are making the same mistake in logic with this comment.

Not at all, since the African Eve Model was originally premised on comparisons to the Noah's Ark Model.

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

Not at all, since the African Eve Model was originally premised on comparisons to the Noah's Ark Model.

The Myths of Adam and Eve and the myth of Noah? How are these related to the African Eve Model. There is no Noah's Ark Model. It is a story. It isn't even the original story. Because western culture has grown up with the Adam and Eve story they used the female common ancestor Eve as just a label. Like naming Lucy Lucy. I bet her name was not Lucy. The female that we al go back to we just named Eve after the story in the Bible. She was not the only female. He line was the only line that survived.
The male we all go back to was about 70-50 thousand years ago 50 to 70 thousand years earlier. He wasn't the only male it is just his line that survived. You seem to lack even the rudiments of evolutionary knowledge.
I am not sure your Bible knowledge is much better. I hope your not trying to make converts. Because your failing badly. You might even be doing your cause harm.

[jcrawford]

Even if so, the genealogies in the Bible and the metaphyisical CONCEPT OF common ancestral origins and descent, are original with the Bible and Darwin only used it in his own naturalist speculations ABOUT THE MECHANISMS INVOLVED in common descent. In other words, the original IDEA OF common descent and common ancesty was not original with Darwin even though the IDEA of 'natural selection' was.

It is true that the idea of common descent and common ancestry in a general sense is not original with Darwin. I agree.

In Darwin's day, even the common public had common knowledge of common descent and common ancestry in the English Common Bible.

However, this is different than what you had originally said, which was that Darwin based his idea of common descent on the Biblical idea of common descent.

Since the basic concept, idea and knowledge of common ancestral descent and origins is common to both Darwin and the Bible, where, and from whom, did the original idea come from, if not authors in the Bible?

It is not enough to simply say that, because the Bible pre-dated Darwin, Darwin must have based his idea on the Bible's. You are simply assuming that this is the case, with no evidence.

So, it's an assumption. Even a religious assumption, if you like.

In addition, we have indirect evidence based on Darwin's own writings that he based his idea on his observations of the natural world, and not on the Bible.

There's nothing in nature to observe which would suggest the "assumption" of common ancestral origins of animals. One would have to have the original concept and idea OF the common ancestral orgins of man, as illustrated in the Bible, before one could apply it to other species.

You have read Darwin's work. Do you find anywhere in his writings any direct indication or acknowledgement that he gleaned his idea of common descent from the geneologies of the Bible?

I have only read Darwin's "Descent of Man" and "Darwin on Man" by Gruber and Barrett. Darwin makes many allusions and comparisons to creationism in his works and notes. He constantly and consistently argues against creationist beliefs found only in the Bible so I am confident that he was also familiar with the many genealogies accounting for common ancestral descent and origins found there.

[jcrawford]

jcrawford wrote:

Not at all, since the African Eve Model was originally premised on comparisons to the Noah's Ark Model.

The Myths of Adam and Eve and the myth of Noah? How are these related to the African Eve Model. There is no Noah's Ark Model.

The following information about the Noah's Ark Model is excerpted from this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Singl ... hypothesis

"The first, termed the candelabra model by Harvard University's William Howells, proposes that ancestral populations--specifically, Homo erectus--throughout the Old World each independently evolved first to archaic Homo sapiens, then to fully modern humans. This model, which has also been called the Neandertal phase hypothesis, therefore envisages multiple origins of Homo sapiens sapiens, and no necessary migrations. One consequence would be that modern geographic populations would have very deep roots, having been separated from each other for a very long time, perhaps as much as a million years.

"The second, which Howells called the Noah's Ark model, envisages a geographically discrete origin, followed by migration throughout the rest of the Old World. In this model, populations of Archaic sapiens might be completely replaced by the newcomers. So, by contrast with the candelabra model, here we have a single origin and extensive migration. Moreover, modern geographic populations would have relatively shallow roots, having derived from a single source in relatively recent times. "

It seems "Noah's Ark" didn't stick and "Out-of-Africa" or "African Eve model" are what researhers use.168... 21:31 17 Jun 2003 (UTC)

The male we all go back to was about 70-50 thousand years ago 50 to 70 thousand years earlier. He wasn't the only male it is just his line that survived.

That's just a hypothetical genetic conjecture based on the racist African Eve Model of Eurasian and Middle Eastern extinction.

You seem to lack even the rudiments of evolutionary knowledge.

I certainly lack the vestigal rudiments of evolutionist theory, but I'm quite up to date on African Adam and nuclear DNA now that the female mtDNA of various racial groups has been abandoned as a reliable geographic compass and mitochondrial 'clock' of female origins.

I am not sure your Bible knowledge is much better. I hope your not trying to make converts. Because your failing badly. You might even be doing your cause harm.

Thank God that I'm not trying to make any converts then. I just want to show how neo-Darwinist theories about the ancestral origins of modern racial groups are intrinsically, inherently and inescapably racist.

[micatala]

There's nothing in nature to observe which would suggest the "assumption" of common ancestral origins of animals. One would have to have the original concept and idea OF the common ancestral orgins of man, as illustrated in the Bible, before one could apply it to other species.

THis is also an assumption on your part. I would certainly not agree that 'there is nothing in nature to suggest common descent.'

How one looks at nature can certainly be affected by ones own existing knowledge, preconceptions, etc. You may look at nature and not see anything that points to common descent, but to say that someone else will also not be able to seems to me to be assuming you understand their own knowledge, workings of their mind, etc. better than they do.

You seem to be saying that it is not possible for someone like Darwin to have an original idea, either because someone else (biblical authors) already had the idea or because he would not be able to think of the idea without having a biblical background. This is assuming a lot on your part.

Science certainly provides a number of examples where two or more different people have had the same idea independent of one another, and often these people have come to their ideas in different ways.

One example is the Indian mathematician Ramanujan. Although basically self-educated in mathematics, he discovered and proved many theorems which, although unknown to him, were well known in western mathematics.

[jcrawford]

There's nothing in nature to observe which would suggest the "assumption" of common ancestral origins of animals. One would have to have the original concept and idea OF the common ancestral orgins of man, as illustrated in the Bible, before one could apply it to other species.

THis is also an assumption on your part.

So what? Scientific hypotheses and theories are premised on assumptions.

I would certainly not agree that 'there is nothing in nature to suggest common descent.'

What specifically in nature does suggest common descent to you? Remember, you've got to have the idea OF common descent tucked securely in your noggin before 'nature' can suggest it to you.

How one looks at nature can certainly be affected by ones own existing knowledge, preconceptions, etc. You may look at nature and not see anything that points to common descent, but to say that someone else will also not be able to seems to me to be assuming you understand their own knowledge, workings of their mind, etc. better than they do.

When it's common knowledge that an idea has already been in the common realm for as far back as anyone can remember though, it's only common sense that a late-comer got the idea of common original descent from the common knowledge pool of his day.

You seem to be saying that it is not possible for someone like Darwin to have an original idea, either because someone else (biblical authors) already had the idea or because he would not be able to think of the idea without having a biblical background. This is assuming a lot on your part.

Natural selection was an original idea of Darwin's. Even Wallace admitted that. The concept and idea of common ancestral origins already existed in Darwin's day though, as evidenced in the Common Bible which was quite popular, even as late as Darwin's time.

If you want to believe that Darwin invented the original concept and idea of common ancestral origins, that's fine with me, but it's just an assumption on your part since there is no historical evidence of it.

[Cathar1950]

jcrawford wrote:

If you want to believe that Darwin invented the original concept and idea of common ancestral origins, that's fine with me, but it's just an assumption on your part since there is no historical evidence of it.

I believe your the one making the assumption and voicing a completely unsupported opinion. I am still trying to understand the point to your invalid opening statement. The logic is unsound and your facts wrong. I could say that Moses got his ideas from time travelers that failed history, science and religion. Prove me wrong.

[QED]

Who do we suppose the first person might have been to spot that most animals bear a strong resemblance to each other when it comes to numbers of eyes, ears, legs, fingers, toes etc? I doubt if the striking similarities would have been lost on any age of man.

We have to look to the insect kingdom to find a significant departure from our basic bauplan, but even there we see variations on a theme rather than out-and-out unique 'designs'. I can easily see this simple observation providing ample inspiration for the notion of common ancestry to any man that set about providing an explanation for the provenance of life.