This post was getting a little long, so I have sent the first part out now.
The remainder will follow upon completion.
Glenn Morton wrote:
>Robert Van de Water wrote:
"Anyway, I seem to have come in at the end of a discussion of a Y chromosome
study. Will someone please tell me if this is the same study as cited in
Hugh Ross's "Chromosome Study Stuns Evolutionists" (Facts and Faith, 3rd
quarter, 1995). If it will be of help, Dr. Ross cites the following
references:
Robert L. Dorit, Hiroshi Akashi and Walter Gilbert . . ."
>Yes that is the same study that Dr. Ross cited.
It seems that you may have misinterpreted my question, Glenn. I was not
asking if Ross cited Dorit et al., I was asking if the Dorit study was the
one being discussed on the reflector. Kind of ironic given the flavor of
the rest of your post.
Glenn continued:
>Robert,
>This is a great example of not fully understanding what the writer is saying.
> There are two theories of how modern man evolved from H. erectus. The first
>is sometimes referred to as the 'Noah's ark' theory. In this scenario, most
>of the evolution of successive species of hominid occurred in Africa with the
>daughter populations spreading out from there to other parts of the world.
> The second theory is sometimes called the "candelabra'" or multiregional
>model. In this view, each local population evolved into the local population
>of H. sapiens. Thus the H.erectus ancestors of Europeans would be different
>from the H.erectus ancestors for the Chinese.
But I actually wrote:
>This recent date rules out a number of different
>species as being the human ancestor and emphasizes the important point that
>morphological similarity and evolutionary story-telling does not prove human
>descent from primates.
and
>Note also the conclusion of this secular (?) author. Homo sapiens did not
>"coevolve" from many different homo erectus populations. How much of the
>fossil evidence for human evolution does this effectively eliminate,
>I wonder?
So, Glenn, I think you missed MY point rather than me missing the author's
point. What this says about my writing is rather distressing. I will try to
clarify my position. (and respond to Jim Foley's post at the same time)
When evolutionists try and establish the "fact" of evolution, they show
fossils exhibiting a gradual change from a creature that existed long ago
to a creature that exists today. "See", they cry, "these species form
a chain from primitive to advanced that could only be the result of evolution
or a 'lying god'. Unless your god is a liar, evolution must be true."
(see the talk.origins archive on the world wide web for more
on the 'lying god' theory)
The creationist response to this argument is that this "chain" of ancestors
has a number of gaps and that a false "phylogeny" could easily be constructed
from a pool of organisms that exhibited a sufficient amount of
diversity. Creationists further argue that because evolution is a finite
process (i.e. a finite number of creatures, undergoing a finite amount of
mutational change through a finite amount of time) and because divine
creation has no limits, diversity is more the hallmark of creation then
evolution.
**Aside**
Unless you were able to postulate an unlimited number of animals as the
starting place for evolution, which you cannot do because of the homologies
of life. (i.e. a monophyletic evolutionary tree is indicated by homologies,
but a polyphyletic evolutionary tree could explain a greater amount of
diversity.)
This dilemma has implications for other arguments for evolution. (Anyone
who has read Walter Remine's **The Biotic Message** will recognize this
as a variant of Walter's central thesis.) Homologies cannot be used
as evidence for evolution, because the alternative (no homologies) would
actually be MORE favorable for evolution (i.e. If homologies did not
exist, evolutionists would have no problem explaining the diversity of
life. All they would have to do is postulate a larger number of "original"
creatures. Instead, they have to deal with Haldane's limit on evolutionary
change and with difficulties explaining the Cambrian and similar explosions.)
Since creatures are classified by their homologies, the argument from
classification is thus also endangered . . . but this will have to wait
until I submit my pamphlet to the review of the reflector.
**End Aside**
We are now to determine between two rival hypotheses:
1) These Morphologically based phylogenies are found because
evolutionary processes are responsible for human life.
2) These morphologically based phylogenies are found because evolutionists
are looking for them and because the diversity of created life allows
plausible looking scenarios to be constructed.
So if we can show from Y chromosome data that a number of the "ancestors"
in the "chain" that evolutionists use to depict human evolution are not
ancestors at all but "separate branches" of the evolutionary tree, this
evidence favors hypothesis 2 over hypothesis 1.
When I was wondering how much of the fossil evidence for human evolution
was eliminated by the Y chromosome data, I was asking how many of the
fossils used to depict human evolution must now be considered to be
"aunts and uncles" as opposed to ancestors. You cannot form a chain of
creatures from primate to man consisting of creatures known to have no
direct ancestral relationship with modern humans. On the other hand,
removing these creatures from the picture of human evolution can only
aggravate the gaps that already exist. (Though, as Jim pointed out,
some proposed scenarios may be immune to this kind of disconfirmation
because they never used any of the non-African fossils to begin with.)
In Christ,
robert van de water
Associate Researcher