Skip to comments.Groundbreaking Book: Science Shows Man Not an Ape
Posted on 12/21/2005 6:22:46 AM PST by truthfinder9
One of biggest paradigm shifts in origins in recent years is when genetics and morphological studies began to show that Neanderthals and humans werent related. Sure, a lot of Darwin Fundies around here dont know that because they get all of their science from the talking point lists of their Fundamentalist Leaders. So this is probably a big shock too, science is also showing that man is not related to any hominids including apes.
In the groundbreaking book, Who was Adam?, biochemist Fazale Rana examines the scientific research that is overturning Darwinian Fundamentalism. Here, using peer-reviewed research that the Darwin Fundies claim doesnt exist, Rana shows man is unique and designed.
And he details the latest findings on the fossil record, junk DNA, Neanderthals, human and chimp genetics. There's more science here than most Darwin Fundies have ever read, but this will be the next great paradigm shift.
The parallels between Genesis and the latest scientific data are profound... - John A. Bloom, Ph.D., professor of physics, Biola University
On Ranas previous book, Origins of Life:
Evolution has just been dealt its deathblow. After reading Origins of Life, it is clear that evolution could not have occurred. - Richard Smalley, Nobel Laureate, Chemistry, 1996, professor of physics and astronomy, Rice University
Real science by real scientists. According to Darwin Fundies this doesn't exist, but here it is.
Bump for later.
Of course humans aren't apes. DUH!
Junk Science and a feeble attempt at self delusion.
These scientists need to research some of the trailer parks in my town.
How about researching some Democrats?
If you want to be taken seriously, you might consider dropping the term "Darwin Fundie."
By Captain Obvious's egghead brother Professor Obvious.
Religious Student doesn't believe in Darwinism = F in class
Atheist Student doesn't believe in Religion, subscribes to Darwinism = A in class
Religious descrimination at its worst.
Sending kids to public schools will guarantee religious discrimination...take the hint.
Rana and Ross's beliefs blind them to the reality of the scientific knowledge gained over the past 200 years. Their attempt to bring together results from biology, chemistry and geology to show how puzzling the origin of life is, utterly fails. They totally omit major portions of research currently underway with in biochemistry, chemistry, and biology, that show a variety of potential pathways to the emergence of proto-life. In the end, the authors fail to prove their point. Just more supernaturalistic excuses for why there has to be a God.
Are you high?
Everyone has known for years that Humans aren't DESCENDED from Neanderthals, but we're clearly RELATED - two different evolutionary branches, with a common ancestor at some point, of course. Genetic studies have confirmed this.
Do you have any time left in your day after you finish constructing gigantic strawmen?
I think it has a nice ring to it. Darwin Fundi. LOL
Many scientists don't agree on whether Neanderthals were human or not. Glad you have all the answers.
These threads usually descend into insults. It's a shame. And it's a big shame that the poster began the insults by referencing Darwin Fundies. That doesn't help.
But I find it interesting that a number of responses are emphasizing the Darwin Fundy insult and not trying to address the subject matter. This is a serious book, using peer reviewed research, and it's being taken seriously by some major scientists.
Having a hissy fit over name calling seems disingenuous.
It's classic case of Creationists projecting themselves on to evolutionists - I really think they literally believe people sit around reading "Origin of Species" in darkened rooms or something.
Actually a heck of a lot of evolutionists haven't read Origin of Species (as a lot of physicists haven't actually sat down and read Newton's "Principia Mathematica") and Darwin is not a religious figure.
Hey, I resent that remark!!!!
Well, Esau was hairy and a cunning hunter....
It's simply fact in most cases - for example, the statement "Most Creationists are liars" isn't an insult, it's a simple fact. Seems to upset people though.
As soon as they stop using degenerating terms for design scientists.
"Darwin is not a religious figure"
I would venture to say he certainly is to some - many on these threads.
Try reading it again. Studies show they aren't related, which is what the post said. What are you reading?
The 12-step meeting is down the hall, cowboy.
Notice that the scientists are NEVER actual trained paleontologists; just an smalll assortment of chemists and physicists on the periphery of the fields necessary to understand evolution.
There's good scholarship: "I'll believe the review of some non-scientist because it happens to agree with what I think."
No wonder evolution is dying.
LOL, this after the evolutionists greatest court victory this century? How dare you rain upon their parade? Did you not read the judge's decision "GOD" is NOT allowed in man's evolution, I mean science class.
"Darwin Fundie" isn't "name-calling," it's a definition:
People who believe, a priori, that Darwinian evolution is true and will rationalize any science to prove it, rather than finding empirical evidence to do so.
Correct. I read Origin quite a few years ago, and am now reading "Voyage of The Beagle".
Most people who accuse Darwin of evolutionary misdeeds don't even realize he died about 80 years before Watson and Crick did their work.
And Darwin was certainly not alone in his naturalist philosophies, Lamarck had done alot of work along very similar veins.
Check this out :-)
Chemists and physisicts actually know what they're doing.
Paleontologists just make conjectures about what they dig up.
If a chemist tells me that, based on the evidence, evolution could not have occurred, I find that somewhat compelling. If a paleontologist tells me that archeopteryx had colorful plumage, I am unconvinced.
Its a simple choice for parents now, sending kids to public schools will guarantee Darwin Fundamentalist indoctrination. Disagree in public schools? Fail the course.
If you want to avoid this, home schooling or private schools are the only way to go.
Methinks the recent ruling out of Harrisburg will help make this situation clear. Public Schools preach Darwinism....its the parents choice whether to send kids there or not.
Some may thing the PA ruling was bad, I think it was good. It created a clear and concise choice for parents. Leftists may be rejoicing, but it could signal big-time trouble for public schools. The last laugh may be had by private schools or homeschoolers.
The author of this article doesn't believe in ID.
Creation Scientist says Intelligent Design Has No Place in Public School Science Curriculum
"As currently formulated, Intelligent Design is not science," says Dr. Fazale Rana, internationally respected biochemist and one of the world's leading experts in origin of life research.
This guy wants to push his own theory that complex things like people are built by God and that complex things like gods occur naturally without a designer.
I usually agree and often admire your posts, but you lost me with this one.
The author simply uses the identical technique which is mother's milk in every pro-evolution article or critique I've ever read.
Why hold one side to a higher standard and totally ignore the contents?
If man evolved from apes, why are apes still here? Wouldn't they all be man?
The great scientists a few centuries back SWORE the earth was flat.
Around the same time, scientists SWORE that bleeding people cured them from all sorts of diseases and that little invisible things called germs was a crock of garbage.
I do believe we adapt, but that in itself is the beauty of ID. The creation with the ability to adapt, evolve, etc...
Please cite these fictional studies.
Like I've said, unless you're being deliberately deceptive, is that you've misunderstood studies showing that:
1) Humans aren't descended from Neanderthals, something long believed in the scientific community anyway and not a shock or surprise
2) Humans have not interbred at all with Neanderthals
...as meaning there's no relation between Humans and Neanderthals. In fact we had a common ancestor, but quite a long time ago, in the 500,000-700,000 year range.
I like it.
But the screechers here won't.
Ok, maybe the book is wrong. Aren't screechers related to "Howlers"?
Darwin Fundies don't like that? Ironic, no? When they invented the word!
It is generally very easy to spot an extremist. My view is this is a religious extremist who takes exception to the fact that humans and other primates share 97% of our DNA. Evolution is a theory. You never see those who believe in it on street corners yelling at the top of their lungs that creationism is a lie. Perhaps there is a real good reason for that.
Would you consider "Oxymorons" denigrating? (I assume that's the word you intended?)
That is not a public school fact.
Not helpful in the Genesis Debate. Too many verses are twisted and poorly exegeted. Clear Scripture declarations are allowed to be 'read into' by sciencism to harmonize with the lab.
No, that's not entirely correct. Rana has critizied the deisgn movement for not focusing enough on creating testable models. Until design does, it will be hard for it to be accepted in schools. Rana has begun to formulate design models in his books.
Wow! You got all that by not reading the book?
Are you a relative of King Kong?
"Of course humans aren't apes. DUH!"
Not so fast. It's obvious that some "humans" do have animal characteristics. Ted Kennedy is obviously a manatee. Michael Moore is obviously from the same planet as Jabba the Hut. Harry Reid throws his own poo, so he is obviously a d@mned dirty ape.