Is there any biological evidence of special creation?

[McCulloch]

Is there any biological evidence of special creation?

God said, “Let the earth bring forth living creatures after their kind, livestock, creeping things, and animals of the earth after their kind;” and it was so. God made the animals of the earth after their kind, and the livestock after their kind, and everything that creeps on the ground after its kind. God saw that it was good.
God said, “Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them. God blessed them. God said to them, “Be fruitful, multiply, fill the earth, and subdue it. Have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.” God said, “Behold, I have given you every herb yielding seed, which is on the surface of all the earth, and every tree, which bears fruit yielding seed. It will be your food. To every animal of the earth, and to every bird of the sky, and to everything that creeps on the earth, in which there is life, I have given every green herb for food;” and it was so.

This seems to indicate, whether you are a literalist or not, that god created humans distinctly and separately from the other animals. However, the fact remains that genetically we are little more than bald chimps - chimpanzees are more closely related to us than they are to gorillas. If taxonomists could get around the political resistance,

there are not one but three species of genus Homo on Earth today: the common chimpanzee, Homo troglodytes; the pygmy chimpanzee, Homo paniscus; and the third chimpanzee or human chimpanzee, Homo sapiens." (p.21)

The biological evidence points to our common evolution (or creation, if you will) with the chimpanzees, separate from the gorillas, gabons and monkeys. Is there any biological evidence of special creation for homo sapiens?

[QED]

steen, don't forget that personal attacks are not tolerated here. You've put a good lot of effort into your side of the argument, if you sense that this has caused someone to back away then why not chalk it up as a victory in your mind and leave it at that.

[steen]

Sorry, you are right. It just gets to me that when somebody are out of arguments for their position, they are not going to admit it, instead going something like "Well, I'm not going to answer you anymore because you are missing my point." To me such action is dishonest and the death of any meaningful discussion.

But I shall try to be better about it.

[Jose]

Sorry, you are right. It just gets to me that when somebody are out of arguments for their position, they are not going to admit it, instead going something like "Well, I'm not going to answer you anymore because you are missing my point." To me such action is dishonest and the death of any meaningful discussion.

Think of it as a special project to get 'em back into the discussion. Sometimes, if you approach it with the challenge of keeping the discussion going as long as possible, you can sneak in some things that make 'em think. I don't think any of us are going to convince our sparring partners to change their minds suddenly, so the hope is to give 'em something to think about.

[otseng]

The passage quoted from Genesis would lead one (and has led many) to believe that god created our species differently than he did the others. Within that context, a fundimental difference, would be one that is significant enough to make our species stand out as god's special work. There are differences between us and other primates just as there are differences between any pair of species you could name. Is there something biological that sets us apart from all other species as being god's special creation?
I readily admit that a negative answer does not disprove special creation. It cannot.
I also admit that our big brain and higher intellegence may qualify.
I am not sure that the definition has become less "ad hoc", but I have made an attempt.

I also am not sure that the definition has become less ad hoc. That is, your definition is still prone to a subjective interpretation. I could point out more distinctions that none of the other organisms possess and yet it could also be interpreted by another as still not being distinctive enough.

I will however throw out another difference. I believe only humans possess consciousness. And I also believe that natural selection fails to satisfactorily explain it. But, unfortunately, that thread sorta died at the point when we just started to nail down on what consciousness is.

[steen]

I will however throw out another difference. I believe only humans possess consciousness. And I also believe that natural selection fails to satisfactorily explain it. But, unfortunately, that thread sorta died at the point when we just started to nail down on what consciousness is.

Hmm, you believe humans have distinct consciousness but don't know what it is?

And decide that NS just can't do it, though the human competitive advantage has been in latering our environment to suit us, thus showing consciousness to be a substantial benefit in this process?

And I am curious about what you see "consciousness" as, when you claim that chimps, f.ex. don't have it? Presumably you have some cursory awareness of all the studies done on chimps the last 50 years showing significant awareness, communication ability, self-recognition and what not? But I'll visit that tread and take a peak.

[McCulloch]

I also am not sure that the definition has become less ad hoc. That is, your definition is still prone to a subjective interpretation.

You are right. An you have done a remarkable job, given my poor definition.

I could point out more distinctions that none of the other organisms possess and yet it could also be interpreted by another as still not being distinctive enough.

Would any of them make you stand up and say, "Wow, god created us specially." ?

I will however throw out another difference. I believe only humans possess consciousness. And I also believe that natural selection fails to satisfactorily explain it. But, unfortunately, that thread sorta died at the point when we just started to nail down on what consciousness is.

That would count. Show that:

1. Of all species, only Homo Sapiens have or have had consciousness AND
2. Natural selection cannot explain the emergence of consciousness

You would also have to get us around to a mutually acceptable definition of consciousness.

[Jose]

I will however throw out another difference. I believe only humans possess consciousness. And I also believe that natural selection fails to satisfactorily explain it. But, unfortunately, that thread sorta died at the point when we just started to nail down on what consciousness is.

That would count. Show that:

1. Of all species, only Homo Sapiens have or have had consciousness AND
2. Natural selection cannot explain the emergence of consciousness

You would also have to get us around to a mutually acceptable definition of consciousness.

Yes, a definition would be good; otherwise we'll be talking about different things. Still, steen has made a good point. Chimps are well known to be able to do things that we consider to require consciousness when we do them. Then there's Koko the gorilla, who told her humans by American Sign Language that her tooth hurt, so they could take her to the dentist to have it fixed. Many animals think, learn, remember, etc--the same things we do. They can't all talk to us the way Koko can, but maybe that's our fault for not learning their language. Heck, Americans don't even bother to learn the languages of other people! I've even heard 'em say "If English was good enough for Jesus, it's good enough for us."

So, given that consciousness does seem to exist among animals, I'd suggest that we seem to be "more" conscious just because our brains are bigger, and we can think more deeply. Furthermore, we happen to have a sophisticated language that we can use, and which allowed us to develop abstract terms (love, honesty, pi) after only a couple of hundred thousand years. From the analysis of Walker and Shipman, it seems likely that the primary difference between us and H. erectus was speech--they didn't have a large enough channel in their upper vertebrae to allow passage of the nerves that are required for modulation of breathing during speech. They looked a lot like us, but acted more like chimps or gorilllas. The difference was probably speech, which required some mutations affecting the development of vertebrae, and the pathfinding of neurons.

To me, it looks like our consciousness is just greater in degree than that of animals. Among animals, there are greater and lesser degrees. It seems, on a cursory examination, to correlate with brain size. From this, it looks like it's entirely evolutionary, with less-complex brains evolving into more complex brains, evolving into even more complex brains.

[QED]

To me, it looks like our consciousness is just greater in degree than that of animals. Among animals, there are greater and lesser degrees. It seems, on a cursory examination, to correlate with brain size. From this, it looks like it's entirely evolutionary, with less-complex brains evolving into more complex brains, evolving into even more complex brains.

But all of this requires an understanding of the path and timescale to which our evolution has been subject to appreciate the diffusion of human attributes. Unfortunately YEC are likely to compress six-million years worth of events and twenty or so species of hominids into a blink of the eye thus forming the impression of a massive step-function to our civilization.

But even in the face of this apparent impasse it is probable that we are the product of Stephen Jay Gould's punctuated equilibrium anyway. To support this we have evidence such as that left by the hands of the mysterious Olorgesailie people of the great rift valley near Nairobi. These individuals (thought to be Homo erectus) fashioned hand-tools continuously, at the same location, for around one-million years. It has been noted that the axes made throughout this period were laborious to produce and were made from hard to carry materials collected from some 10Km away -- and yet despite all the effort were very inefficient for their presumed uses.

The same sort of developmental pattern emerges from the other hominids such that our step can be seen as not so great, or uncommon.

[otseng]

Would any of them make you stand up and say, "Wow, god created us specially." ?

I can't really think of "wows", but there certainly are a lot of "hmms".

Here are some:
- Humans are the only thing that is able to use fire. (This is absolutely necessary if humans are to become an advanced civilization)
- Humans are the only thing that practices religion. (Why would all animals that have originated through natural means ultimately result in mankind that is predisposed to believing in the supernatural?)
- Humans are the only thing that pass on knowledge that has been learned. (We talk about teaching chimps sign language, but have they ever learned something and taught us?)
- Humans are the only thing that have the concept of right and wrong. (Can animals do something "wrong"?)
- Humans are the only thing capable of understanding the cosmos. (And even more, it was setup so that we can understand the cosmos)

Though there are many more differences that I could list, I think the fundamental point is that humans is (in QED's terminology) a "massive step-function" away from all other animals. Coincidence? Simply a natural result of evolution? I would argue that either would be hard to prove. Rather, the cumulative effect of all these (as well as those not listed) would be a loud "Hmm, perhaps we are special".

That would count. Show that:

1. Of all species, only Homo Sapiens have or have had consciousness AND
2. Natural selection cannot explain the emergence of consciousness

You would also have to get us around to a mutually acceptable definition of consciousness.

I'll leave that for discussion in the other thread.

[Lotan]

- Humans are the only thing that is able to use fire. (This is absolutely necessary if humans are to become an advanced civilization)
- Humans are the only thing that practices religion. (Why would all animals that have originated through natural means ultimately result in mankind that is predisposed to believing in the supernatural?)
- Humans are the only thing that pass on knowledge that has been learned. (We talk about teaching chimps sign language, but have they ever learned something and taught us?)
- Humans are the only thing that have the concept of right and wrong. (Can animals do something "wrong"?)
- Humans are the only thing capable of understanding the cosmos. (And even more, it was setup so that we can understand the cosmos)

Hi otseng.
Regarding the first point, it is inaccurate to say that animals have ultimately resulted in mankind. Evolution doesn't work that way.
The second point is simply incorrect. Among other examples, chimpanzees are observed to teach their children how to use branches to crack nuts or use twigs to 'fish' for termites. Famously, macaques have taught other macaques how to wash potatos.
The third point rests on the assumption that "right and wrong" exist as universal absolutes. If we define "right and wrong " in terms of cultural norms, then baboons (among others) qualify as well.
And finally, yes, humans can understand the cosmos to some degree (some more than others to be sure). However your claim that it was "setup" is unsupported.
Humans are able to understand the cosmos for the same reason that we are able to understand anything else - our brain size.