Thumbs up

[YEC]

Evolutionist like to assume that just because man appears to have shared some features with apes and gorillas it means that it descended from a common ancestor. Of course, there could be a problem with this thought concerning the fragmented skulls presented as evidence.
Creatures often have similar features which evolutionists do not believe are derived from a common ancestor. For instance, the giant panda and the red panda are similar enough to both be called pandas, down to their sesamoid thumbs (the only creatures to have them), but they are believed to have no close relationship. The giant panda is believed to have descended from bears and the red panda from the racoon. The evolutionist call this evolution of their thumbs, "Convergent Evolution". This process is said to have made the thumbs of both pandas alike . If it can happen in that instance, on what basis does the evolutionist claim the so-called homologous features of the ape prove descent from a common ancestor and not convergent evolution?

[juliod]

"By your creationist model, were the Pandas on the Ark, or did they evolve from things that were on the ark?

How many kinds of ape were on the ark? "

206 different kinds of primates.

OK, how many kinds of panda (or pre-panda)?

If humans and chimps descended from different progenitors on the ark, and the two kinds of panda also descended from different ark-riders as well, I don't see what your problem is.

If pandas descended from a single rider, but humans and chimps from two, I still don't see the issue.

"Does your model of hyper-evolution after the flood solve this convergence/divergence problem you are having? Does hyper-evolution not allow divergence? "

That would be hyper speciation.

What would be hyper-speciation? Are you saying that speciation after the flood was not due to evolution? Does this process not allow divergence, or in some way solve the convergence/divergence problem?

I still don't see what point you are making.

DanZ

[ST88]

Evolutionist like to assume that just because man appears to have shared some features with apes and gorillas it means that it descended from a common ancestor.

What you might say is "some" features is actually a predominance of features that, if calculated, might approach 95 or 97% similarity. The two panda species do not have this level of similarity. And it's not really that we can compare two arbitrary different species and study their differences to see how closely they are related. The important fact is that these species appear in an overall picture of life on earth. Humans are more similar to apes than they are to rats, for example. Within the scope of common descent, this leads us to believe that humans are more closely related to apes than rats. The theory is that the level of similarity defines how close they are, if you will.

There are many species that resemble others, such as dolphins and sharks; echidnas and hedgehogs; lemurs and sugargliders; legless lizards and snakes; mushrooms and hyacinths; etc. But the level of similarity between these is not as great as it is to those in their own family of organisms. Dolphins do not have gills. Hedgehogs do not lay eggs. However, looking at apes and humans, the differences are biologically minute compared to the differences between these other species. It isn't just thumbs, it's hand shape, bone structure, blood chemistry -- Jose could probably give better and more complete examples. The point is that convergent evolution only applies to characteristics that define how certain designs can be successful in certain environments. In the case of the shark and the dolphin, it shows that carnivorous water dwellers are better off with a sleek shape, smooth skin, and fins in certain places. But it says nothing about whether it is better to require gills or a blowhole.

[YEC]

ST88 posted:

What you might say is "some" features is actually a predominance of features that, if calculated, might approach 95 or 97% similarity. The two panda species do not have this level of similarity

What is the calculated similarity between the Giant and Red Panda?

[Dilettante]

YEC, the panda thumb issue may backfire on ID fans. Why? Because it could be seen as strong evidence for UD, Unintelligent Design...

[ST88]

ST88 posted:

What you might say is "some" features is actually a predominance of features that, if calculated, might approach 95 or 97% similarity. The two panda species do not have this level of similarity

What is the calculated similarity between the Giant and Red Panda?

According to The Panda's Thumb: Whence the Giant Panda The differences are larger than the differences between the sea lion and the walrus, and smaller than the differences between the mongoose and the cat.

I'm not versed enough in the science to answer exactly, but if the divergence scale on the above website is representative of percentage of difference, then I can estimate. If I had to guess based on these figures (this graph mostly), assuming human to human as 100 to 100 and human to earliest mammal as 100 to 1, I would put the difference between red and giant pandas at about 25. This would be contrasted with a difference between humans to apes at about 2 or 3. You can flay me for these figures if you like, since I pulled them out of the air, but I think it depends greatly on how you measure differences -- what kind of scale you use, blood analyses vs. anatomical analyses, divergence scales, or my own amateur interpolated divergence-o-meter that you asked for. But, since you asked...

[Jose]

Hmmmmmm, they seem to share a lot of characteristics...both have eyes, ears, hearts..THUMBS......your point?

Don't the rules argue against one-liners? They are remarkably uninformative. My point was, as I wrote before, that it is necessary to look at all of the characteristics. You haven't done that. If you do, you'll know what I'm talking about. Of course, when you look, you also have to see, which may be difficult if your conclusions are already firmly set.

Perhaps you can present the characteristics and tell me where I am wrong

First, this is another one-liner. Please get with the program.

Second, here's a short list of characteristics, in which I mention just the characteristics, and not the morphological details thereof.

SKULL: CRANIUM (CHARACTERS 1–27)
1. ROSTRUM OR MUZZLE
2. ORBITS
3. POSTORBITAL BAR
4. POSTORBITAL PLATE behind eye
5. BRAINCASE
6. FACIAL ELONGATION (prognathism)
7. FRONTALS
8. FRONTAL and ALISPHENOID contact
9. POSTPALATINE coronal TORUS
10. POSTERIOR PALATAL SPINE
11. JUGAL (MALAR), posterior end
12. SUBARCUATE FOSSA
13. TYMPANIC FLOOR
14. ENTOTYMPANIC
15. ECTOTYMPANIC
16. ECTOTYMPANIC shape
17. CAUDAL TYMPANIC PROCESS of petrosal
18. BASIOCCIPITAL
19. TEGMEN TYMPANI
20. EPITYMPANIC CREST CREST (canal for stapedial artery) on TEGMEN TYMPANI
21. TEGMEN TYMPANI, arterial foramen in
22. AUDITORY TUBE 1 ENTOTYMPANIC 1 TEGMINAL COMMISSURE, cartilage of
23. EPITYMPANIC WING of petrosal
24. EPITYMPANIC WING of alisphenoid
25. INTERNAL CAROTID ARTERY
26. OSSEOUS CAROTID CANAL leading to carotid foramen
27. GREATER PETROSAL NERVE

SKULL: MANDIBLE (CHARACTERS 28–34)
28. MANDIBULAR SYMPHYSIS
29. MANDIBULAR SYMPHYSIS
30. Base of CORONOID PROCESS at anterior end in adult individuals
31. CORONOID PROCESS of mandible when teeth are fully occluded
32. MANDIBULAR CONDYLE, orientation of long axis
33. ANGULAR PROCESS of mandible
34. MANDIBULAR GONIAL REGION

SKULL: FORAMINA (CHARACTERS 35–44)
35. PREMAXILLARY CANAL
36. INCISIVE FORAMEN [anterior palatine], direction of
37. NASOLACRIMAL FORAMEN
38. ORBITAL OPENING
39. FORAMEN ROTUNDUM
40. CAROTID CANAL, viewed from ventral side of cranium
41. POSTGLENOID FORAMEN
42. EXTERNAL AUDITORY MEATUS or CANAL
43. FOSSA GENIOGLOSSI FORAMINA
44. FORAMINA SUPERSPINOSA

SKULL: DENTITION (CHARACTERS 45–51)
45. INCISORS
46. LOWER INCISORS, enamel on lingual side of
47. I1, size of
48. HONING in males (back of upper canine sharpens against third lower premolar)
49. PREMOLARS
50. MOLARS
51. DENTITION

HEAD: SOFT CHARACTERS (CHARACTERS 52–57)
52. RHINARIUM and UPPER LIP
53. CHEEK POUCHES
54. RETINA, central foveal spot on
55. TAPETUM LUCIDUM, on the choroid
56. BRAIN, sylvian and superior temporal sulci
57. CAROTID ARTERIES

BODY: VERTEBRAL COLUMN AND APPENDAGES (CHARACTERS 58–89)
58. THORACIC VERTEBRAE
59. RIBS
60. SCAPULA
61. HUMERAL SUPRATROCHLEAR, or supracondylar FORAMEN (septal aperture)
62. HUMERAL ENTEPICONDYLAR FORAMEN
63. ENTEPICONDYLAR FORAMEN, position of
64. HUMERAL EPITROCHLEAR NOTCH or groove on MEDIAL EPICONDYLE distally and anteriorly
65. ULNAR STYLOID PROCESS
66. SCAPHOID and LUNAR
67. POLLEX
68. PELVIS, shape of acetabulum
69. PELVIS, size of acetabular fossa
70. PELVIS, obturator groove or notch
71. FEMORAL HEAD: FOVEA (pit, or small fossa) for LIGAMENTUM TERES
72. FEMUR, relative thickness of neck
73. FEMORAL THIRD TROCHANTER
74. FEMORAL CONDYLES
75. TIBIA, length of fibular facet
76. TIBIA, fibular facet location
77. TIBIA, presence of horizontal posterior malleolar groove
78. FIBULA–CALCANEUM contact
79. ASTRAGALUS–CUBOID contact
80. ASTRAGALUS (TALUS) FIBULAR FACET, viewed posteriorly
81. ASTRAGALUS (TALUS) TIBIAL FACET on medial side
82. ASTRAGALUS (TALUS): FLEXOR HALLUCIS LONGUS GROOVE, position on posterior trochlea
83. NAVICULAR DISTAL FACET
84. ENTOCUNEIFORM, lateral distal facet on
85. METATARSALS
86. FIRST METATARSAL PERONEAL TUBERCLE
87. HALLUX
88. THIRD (III) DIGIT, size of, in pes
89. DIGITS III and IV, relative sizes in pes

BODY: SOFT TISSUE CHARACTERS (CHARACTERS 90–100)
90. CLAWS
91. STOMACH
92. UTERUS
93. EMBRYONIC NASAL CAPSULE
94. EMBRYONIC DISC
95. CHORIOVITELLINE PLACENTA
96. ALLANTOIC DIVERTICULUM
97. PLACENTA
98. INTRAPLACENTAL MATERNAL VESSELS
99. PLACENTAL HEMATOPOIESIS
100. OVARIAN INTERSTITIAL GLAND TISSUE DEVELOPMENT

…and another 164 characteristics from prior analyses.
...and several million bases of DNA.

From:
Primate Phylogeny: Morphological vs Molecular Results
JEHESKEL SHOSHANI, COLIN P. GROVES, ELWYN L. SIMONS, AND GREGG F. GUNNELL. MOLECULAR PHYLOGENETICS AND EVOLUTION
Vol. 5, No. 1, February, pp. 102–154, 1996

Now, where are you wrong? Look at your short list: eyes, ears, hearts, and thumbs. The phylogenetic similarities among organisms are not based on trivial numbers of characteristics. You can certainly make fun of evolutionists by pretending they just look at eyes, ears, and hearts, or just at the lengths of snouts on skulls, but the joke kind of backfires.

[seventil]

YEC, if this is an attack on the methodical practices of evolutionists, or lack thereof, I have to agree with juliod and Jose that you haven't done a very good job in providing any factual or scientific evidence to support your theory.

As a Creationist, I believe that the methods and practices that scientists (evolutionists, Creationists both) use are remarkable and usually well thought-out. While I don't agree with the philosophical bias that both parties use in their methods sometimes, I don't think that it's related to this subject.

I would like to see some actual substance to an allegation. Spouting off that the external organs of apes and humans are alike -and this is how evolutionists conclude that we evolved from them- is silly, and puts yet another scar on the reputation of Creation scientists, and the community as a whole.

I hope this, coming from a fellow believer, will perhaps make you reword your question for clarity purposes (or resend it) and we can get back to a real debate.

[bernee51]

Spouting off that the external organs of apes and humans are alike -and this is how evolutionists conclude that we evolved from them-

You make a call to YEC for to ... provide (ing) any factual or scientific evidence to support your theory. "...and then you come up with a comment like that above.

For a start I know of no evolutionist of any note who claims man descended from apes. Most would offer the opinion that apes and man had a common ancestor.

Sure the phenotype (of that is the word) shows similarities and that is enough to encourage a deeper investigation. I think the fact that the shared DNA in our closest relatives in the primate family is in excess of 99% would provide a fair indication of common ancestory.

[seventil]

For a start I know of no evolutionist of any note who claims man descended from apes. Most would offer the opinion that apes and man had a common ancestor.

That's what I meant. I was defending the scientific methods of scientists. YEC had stated that the reason for primates and humans having a common ancestor was because of similiar organs (thumbs, heart, etc). I was merely hoping for a better explanation on what exactly he was saying.

Sorry I worded it confusingly.

[Jose]

Thank you, seventil! It would be good if we could debate the actual issues, rather than merely throwing barbs at each other. I agree with you that it is silly to make up simple-minded examples to make others look bad. As you say, it puts a scar on the reputation of the individual and also the entire movement. This is as true for evolutionists mis-characterizing creationists as it is for creationists mis-characterizing evolutionists.