And it’s not scientific either.
Honestly, @r_speir, I am now not sure if you are serious or not. My initial comment was based on an assumption that your proposal was purposefully inflammatory and not serious, but now I wonder if Poe’s law is in effect here.
1 Like
@Paul_Nelson is kindly ensuring I get a review copy of this book. I look forward to reading it with anticipation.
I notice that “Theistic Evolution” in this book, seems to be a particular brand of TE / EC. I say this because they choose to includes the theistic evolutionist Michael Behe as an endorser, writing:
Theistic evolution means different things to different people. This book carefully identifies,
and thoroughly debunks, an insidious, all-too-commonly accepted sense of the phrase
and also even go to define what has gone wrong with TE in this iteration. One of the final chapters is titled…
Additional Note: B. B. Warfield Did Not Endorse Theistic Evolution as It Is Understood Today
I’m curious to read this book to understand what exactly they think the problem is, and if it can be reconciled. If the issue is just that they do not like the type of TE they see currently, perhaps they could grow a new type that they theologically find acceptable, but still affirms evolutionary science. Perhaps the conflict here is just a theological fight being imported into science (not just by them, to be clear, but many of us).
In reading articles over at ENV it would seem that they are against the idea that humans are the product of natural processes. More to the point, they reject the idea that God’s plan can be enacted through natural processes instead of through actions outside of natural processes. For example, this snippet from a recent ENV article:
"Coded information of this kind is a profound problem for theistic or atheistic evolution (quick, what’s the scientific difference between the two?). "
They like to give the impression that theistic evolutionists are promoting atheism, and that seems to extend to EC and BioLogos. Unless someone believes that God has to directly interact with creation outside of natural laws they will view you as being no different than atheists. It makes you wonder what they think about atheistic plate tectonics or atheistic germ theory.
And all of this is before we get to their theological stance which requires a more literal reading of Genesis than most people are comfortable with.
1 Like
Looks like this is continuing here…
Post deleted
It might be worth mentioning that genetics doesn’t work like mixing Hershey’s Chocolate Syrup into milk. Genes stay intact and don’t mix with the genes on the other chromosome. A review of Mendelian genetics would do you some good.
For example, let’s look at gene A. Gene A from the apes and Gene A from the Nephelim or whomever are only 70% similar. The two crossbreed. The offspring would have one allele of Gene A that is 70% similar to chimps and one allele that is 100% identical to chimps. Descendants of this crossbreeding would have some alleles that are 70% similar to chimps and some that are nearly 100% identical to chimps. This is not what we see in humans. All alleles are about the same distance away from chimps, about 99% similar. This rules out your scenario.
5 Likes
Well, one of the things you will have to examine is how the heck any human male would get close enough to a gorilla or chimpanzee female to crossbreed without being killed first. These primates are intrinsically much more powerful than humans… even more powerful than human males.
Then there is the conflicting behavior patterns. Unlike what can be found in human mating, it is virtually impossible for a non-human primate female to be compelled to mate. While theoretically non-human primate males have the strength, it would require a very different learned approach to females. In the wilds, female primates just sit down and that’s the end of the day for the male.
There’s no extended threats, or negotiations to prolong the discussions. And there is no way to communicate that “if she does or doesn’t do something, drastic measures are inevitable”.
So let’s anticipate a possible refutation: male human with female non-human. She sits down, and he starts to explain what she has to do if she knows what is in her best interests. What language would the male human use that the female would understand?
And if a rape is attempted human style, it is well within the female chimp or gorilla’s behavioral catalog for violence to kill the human right there.
While it is feasible, I suppose, in some sick or deluded way, to imagine that humans could capture female primates and cage them, I think you will find plenty of anecdotal evidence that there was no systematic way for humans to safely enter a cage with a primate of any size. Until the advent of the tranquilizer gun, the idea of surviving “a date” with a female gorilla seems most unlikely.
Let’s reverse the question: Male gorilla’s capturing female humans… and then what? There would be no grim recital of pre-rape threats… Because non-human primates are not the best conversationalists.
Female resistance would be answered with a simple primate response of breaking an arm or smashing a skull. But in a population where pheromones are the principle methods of foreplay, why would a non-human primate find humans at all interesting? From their viewpoint, humans are just soooooooo hairless… gruesomely so! And without the right pheromone, could a non-human primate male even discover enough arousal as to make any of this plausible?
And finally, @r_speir, there is the genetic biochemistry of human and non-human gametes. If our chromosomes were compatible 6000 years ago … they would be compatible still today! In fact, they should be more so, if the current generations reflect any past cross-breeding. A few petri dishes could quickly confirm what we have all be explaining to you: at the biochemical level, not just all the other levels, you would discover that it just couldn’t happen.
2 Likes
Look into the incubi. They have been handy in explaining away embarrassing pregnancies, so why not this?
Good point about pheromones. Non-human mammals breed when the female is in heat, which makes her sexually receptive to suitors.
Most chimps and the like simply run away from humans. It took Jane Goodall a long time before the chimpanzees let her get close. You are right about mentioning the danger. A male chimp is much stronger than a human and can tear a man apart.
Now I’m having a giggle fit, picturing the divine sons of God swinging through the jungle, trying to court wild chimpanzees! 
1 Like
Post deleted
So, essentially, the point you are making is that:
Nephilim are not just humans, they are demi-gods.
And you want to your audience to take your proposal seriously that non-human primates were derived in part with the genome of quasi-divine humans.
Oh, well… I should have realized how reasonable you were being. I’m just going to sit here with a 5 gallon barrel of popcorn and enjoy the show!
1 Like
Perverted men sometimes do have sex with animals. But the genetic differences are too great for any offspring to be conceived, let alone fertile offspring.
Point to all your evidence for this. Are professional geneticists excited about this hypothesis of yours?
How do you know their goals and what they did? How did the Nephilim inject their DNA into the animal kingdom? With an orgy that would make Game of Thrones blush? What about the problem of genetic compatibility? Crocoduck anyone?
Nothing is a problem in a cartoon world or in an episode of “The Walking Dead.” In the real world things are drastically different.
1 Like
Cool! And in other news, the new Jurassic World II trailer will be released tomorrow!
1 Like
So, I disagree with @r_speir, but his crazy idea is not so left field as you might imagine.
The position he is expounding is not invented by him. It is the story in the Book of the Watchers, which is part of the Books of Enoch, and are an ancient midrash on Genesis 6 from about 200 BC. This is actually one view of Genesis held by enough people. He is not inventing this. That is why you also echoes of this in Ken Hams imaginative diorama.
Before you knock it, it is worth understanding.
Now, I do not think this is what happened. I do not endorse this view (lest there be any doubt), but it does point to something about Genesis that we often miss. In my view, Genesis is full of ellipses, it’s enduring appeal is in that it invites to wonder.
1 Like
Perhaps you missed part of the dialogue? He isn’t talking about the Neph. drama.
He is suggesting that some modern non-human primates are descended from the Neph!
It is possible I misread him. It is also likely he is deviating from the historical account. Sorry if I missed something key here, though even if he is wrong, it appears to be in the same “class” as Book of the Watchers.