Video trailer for the Crossway Theistic Evolution book

If that is your hypothesis, is the burden of proof not yours?

4 Likes

Um… you seem really fascinated with this particular topic.

I’m not a biologist, but I’m going to wager that there’s no research on this. Research takes time and costs money, so people usually only do it to test hypotheses that have a remote chance of being true. The scenario you’ve described is so far removed from what the data suggest that there’s no need to research it just to prove it wrong.

If you don’t know why, there are a lot of resources on this site that can help fill in some background information on general evolutionary theory so you understand why your scenario isn’t really plausible.

1 Like

Post deleted

@r_speir,

Didn’t you read in the bible that animal kinds are represented by those populations that can produce successive generations.

Are you suggesting that Humans and Non-Human apes are, actually, the same Kind?

Considering the general distastefulness of your beastiality hypotheses, when can we expect the YEC scientists to explore genetic compatibilities in test tubes of gametes and so forth.

Think of how famous they would be for performing experiments on this theme?!

Let’s say one of the natural mechanisms is mutations + recombination + others acted upon by environmental factors. We can trace these changing between generations and even trace specific genes between species.

Note: the follow is not my personal view, but I think generally sums up how most (at least non Christian and some Christian) scientists view creationism–
You claim: that an invisible being comes in and interacts via an unknown mechanism doing god knows what and you are demanding that the burden of proof rests on who now?

Note: back to me. I think this blogger sums up the problem with any anti-evolution teachings. Basically, they fail to provide a real alternate explanation outside of ‘oogity-boogity:’

Here’s a little extra that Nature put together:
https://www.nature.com/nature/newspdf/evolutiongems.pdf

3 Likes

Underlying this question is the assumption that there are defined boundaries between species as they are evolving. There aren’t. And humans did not mate with their ape-like ancestors to produce humans with genetic similarities to apes. You can’t mate with your ancestors, just your contemporaries. Within a population, all the individuals would be close enough genetically that it would not be a lower form mating with a higher form. This scenario you have imagined doesn’t make any sense.

3 Likes

The comparison of the human and chimpanzee genomes. If similarity with chimpanzees resulted from hybridization, it would be confined to the parts of the genome acquired from said beast. It isn’t. Instead, the similarity is present everywhere. Your idea is impossible. [quote=“r_speir, post:20, topic:37306”]
Show me unequivocally how you know the human is a descendant of the apes and not visa versa
[/quote]
This challenge makes no sense in an evolutionary context. Humans and great apes are equally descended from a common ancestor.

6 Likes

Post deleted

5 Likes

Your proposal is eliminated by the fact that all portions of the human genome are similar to chimps and other apes. The type of hybridization you are talking about would produce portions of the human genome that are like chimps and others that are not.

4 Likes

Great point! Unfortunately, @glipsnort already explained this and was still ruled as being in denial…

3 Likes

It’s even worse these days. Why, Andy Serkis was transformed into a chimpanzee!

1 Like

I already eliminated your proposal. Why are you still offering it when it could not possibly be correct?

1 Like

Post deleted

For all portions of the genome to show the similarity, the mixing would have had to happen many thousands of generations ago.

2 Likes

That is really a high koala-tee meme…
I’m glad you clipped us that from wherever you found it!

3 Likes

Post deleted

You live in a very strange world, one that little resembles the one the rest of us live in.

5 Likes

But you must admit it’s very colorful.

1 Like

What are you basing this on? It certainly isn’t the Bible.

5 Likes