Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

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 weren’t related. Sure, a lot of Darwin Fundies around here don’t 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 doesn’t 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 Rana’s 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.

TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: apes; bloodbath; bookreview; chimps; creationuts; crevo; crevolist; darwin; darwinfundies; darwinistidiots; design; disgracetofr; dover; evolution; genetics; godcreatedevolution; intelligentdesign; junkscience; man; nomonkey; origins; postedtowrongforum; pseudoscience; science; stupidcreationists; unitedchurchofdarwin; whowasadam
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 501-515 next last
To: The_Victor

Darwin Fundies don't like that? Ironic, no? When they invented the word!

41 posted on 12/21/2005 6:45:04 AM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

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.

42 posted on 12/21/2005 6:45:18 AM PST by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9
As soon as they stop using degenerating terms for design scientists.

Would you consider "Oxymorons" denigrating? (I assume that's the word you intended?)

43 posted on 12/21/2005 6:45:28 AM PST by ASA Vet (Those who know don't talk, those who talk don't know.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: add925

That is not a public school fact.

44 posted on 12/21/2005 6:45:59 AM PST by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
You'd probably appreciate the pro/con dispassionate reviews at Amazon. I found reviews by the supporters of id interesting. What surprised me the most was this one :

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.

45 posted on 12/21/2005 6:46:14 AM PST by Zechariah11 (Rejection of the True Shepherd; Acceptance of the False Shepherd)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: trebb
"Well, Esau was hairy and a cunning hunter" He was a cunning linguist too.
46 posted on 12/21/2005 6:46:15 AM PST by bessay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: bessay

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.

47 posted on 12/21/2005 6:46:52 AM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
"Junk Science and a feeble attempt at self delusion."

Wow! You got all that by not reading the book?

I'm impressed.

48 posted on 12/21/2005 6:47:29 AM PST by manwiththehands ("Merry Christmas .... and Happy New Year ... you can take your seat now ...")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Vaquero
Junk Science and a feeble attempt at self delusion.

Are you a relative of King Kong?

49 posted on 12/21/2005 6:48:02 AM PST by apackof2 (You can stand me up at the gates of hell, I'll stand my ground and I won’t back down)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852

"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.

50 posted on 12/21/2005 6:48:04 AM PST by exile (Exile - Helen Thomas tried to lure me into her Gingerbread House.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: truthfinder9

I don't view the theory of evolution as dying.

51 posted on 12/21/2005 6:48:20 AM PST by SALChamps03
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: mlc9852
I've always found it interesting that Darwin himself recanted his own theory near the end of his life and embraced the possibility of God and an afterlife.

I also find it interesting that evolution is still "theory" which means it hasn't been proved conclusively and yet any other theory is dismissed. Funny how only one "theory" is considered science and any other theory is not.
52 posted on 12/21/2005 6:48:23 AM PST by Sweetjustusnow (Oust the IslamoCommies here and abroad.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SALChamps03

Whether or not it's dying, the majority don't buy it so I guess it doesn't matter.

53 posted on 12/21/2005 6:49:36 AM PST by mlc9852
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: ClearCase_guy
Having a hissy fit over name calling seems disingenuous.

Not at all. The reason is complex and beyond the amount of time I have now to expand on it, but the reason the topic is deflected to hurt feelings is precisely because these staunch defenders of evolution would rather not address the peer-reviewed science.

They imply that all answers have been "nailed down" (or almost).

Please note the origin and extent of the name calling in any other evolution threads. The supporters of the perverts invented argument by ad hominem.

54 posted on 12/21/2005 6:49:58 AM PST by Publius6961 (The IQ of California voters is about 420........... .............cumulatively)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: SALChamps03
That is not a public school fact.

Little Johnny gets a test handed out by his public school science teacher:

Man is descended from:

1) Orange Trees
2) Electrons
3) Apes
4) Water

In the eyes of the public school teacher, there is only 1 right answer.

55 posted on 12/21/2005 6:50:06 AM PST by add925 (The Left = Xenophobes in Denial)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: From The Deer Stand
If man evolved from apes, why are apes still here? Wouldn't they all be man?

Yeah! Answer that one, all you Darwinian fundy monkey-lovers!

Just put down the bananas and answer!

56 posted on 12/21/2005 6:50:53 AM PST by headsonpikes (The Liberal Party of Canada are not b*stards - b*stards have mothers!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: add925
Public School Fact: 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.

The only fact in your post is that you are an idiot.
57 posted on 12/21/2005 6:51:08 AM PST by newcats
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
I've always found it interesting that Darwin himself recanted his own theory near the end of his life and embraced the possibility of God and an afterlife.

ROFL....see Reply 21 on this thread, RE: Creationists lying.

The deathbed recantation by Darwin is a complete fabrication. Never happened.

58 posted on 12/21/2005 6:51:18 AM PST by Strategerist
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Strategerist

You must be slow, because the studies show man is not related, not descended and doesn't share a common ancestor with Neaderthals.

Here's some "fictional" studies for you:

Laitman, J.T., J.S. Reidenberg, S. Marquez, and P. J. Gannon. 1996. What the nose knows: New understandings of Neanderthal upper respiratory tract specializations. Proceedings of txe National Academy of Science USA 93: 10543-10545.

Ramirez, F. V., R. and J. Maria Bermudez de Castro. 2004. Surprisingly rapid growth in Neanderthals. Nature 428: 936-939 doi:10.1038/nature02428.

Holden, C. 1999. A New Look Into Neandertals' Noses. Science 285: 31-33.

Krings, M., A. Stone, R. W. Schmitz, H. Krainitzki, M. Stoneking, and S. Paabo. 1997. Neandertal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans. Cell 90: 19-30.

Ovchinnikov, I.V., A. Gotherstrom, G. P. Romanovak, V. M. Kharitonov, K. Liden, and W. Goodwin. 2000. Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus. Nature 404: 490-493.

Krings, M., C. Capelli, F. Tschentscher, H. Geisert, S. Meyer, A. von Haeseler, K. Grossschmidt, G. Possnert, M. Paunovic, and S. Pääbo. 2000. A view of Neandertal genetic diversity Nature Genetics 26: 144-146.

Schmitz, R. W., Serre, D., Bonani, G., Feine, S., Hillgruber, F., Krainitzki, H., Pääbo, S. & Smith, F. H. 2002.

The Neandertal type site revisited: Interdisciplinary investigations of skeletal remains from the Neander Valley, Germany. Proceedings of the National Academy of Science USA 99: 13342-13347

59 posted on 12/21/2005 6:51:27 AM PST by truthfinder9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Sweetjustusnow
I've always found it interesting that Darwin himself recanted his own theory near the end of his life and embraced the possibility of God and an afterlife.

Ummm...In a word - no.

I also find it interesting that evolution is still "theory" which means it hasn't been proved conclusively and yet any other theory is dismissed. Funny how only one "theory" is considered science and any other theory is not.

Time to dust off what a theory in science is.

Let me post my own example of gravity:

A little history here:

Newton’s Law of Universal Gravitation

“Every object in the universe attracts every other object with a force directed along the line of centers for the two objects that is proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the separation between the two objects.”



F equals the gravitational force between two objects
m1 equals the mass of the first object
m2 equals the mass of the second object
R equals the distance between the objects
G equals the universal constant of gravitation = (6.6726 )* 10-11 N*m2/kg2 (which is still being refined and tested today)

(BTW this is a simple form of the equation and is only applied to point sources. Usually it is expressed as a vector equation)

Even though it works well for most practical purposes, this formulation has problems.

A few of the problems are:

It shows the change is gravitational force is transmitted instantaneously (Violates C), assumes an absolute space and time (this contradicts Special Relativity), etc.

Enter Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity

In 1915 Einstein developed a new theory of gravity called General Relativity.

A number of experiments showed this theory explained some of the problems with the classical Newtonian model. However, this theory like all others is still being explored and tested.

From an NSF abstract:

“As with all scientific knowledge, a theory can be refined or even replaced by an alternative theory in light of new and compelling evidence. The geocentric theory that the sun revolves around the earth was replaced by the heliocentric theory of the earth's rotation on its axis and revolution around the sun. However, ideas are not referred to as "theories" in science unless they are supported by bodies of evidence that make their subsequent abandonment very unlikely. When a theory is supported by as much evidence as evolution, it is held with a very high degree of confidence.

In science, the word "hypothesis" conveys the tentativeness inherent in the common use of the word "theory.' A hypothesis is a testable statement about the natural world. Through experiment and observation, hypotheses can be supported or rejected. At the earliest level of understanding, hypotheses can be used to construct more complex inferences and explanations. Like "theory," the word "fact" has a different meaning in science than it does in common usage. A scientific fact is an observation that has been confirmed over and over. However, observations are gathered by our senses, which can never be trusted entirely. Observations also can change with better technologies or with better ways of looking at data. For example, it was held as a scientific fact for many years that human cells have 24 pairs of chromosomes, until improved techniques of microscopy revealed that they actually have 23. Ironically, facts in science often are more susceptible to change than theories, which is one reason why the word "fact" is not much used in science.

Finally, "laws" in science are typically descriptions of how the physical world behaves under certain circumstances. For example, the laws of motion describe how objects move when subjected to certain forces. These laws can be very useful in supporting hypotheses and theories, but like all elements of science they can be altered with new information and observations.

Those who oppose the teaching of evolution often say that evolution should be taught as a "theory, not as a fact." This statement confuses the common use of these words with the scientific use. In science, theories do not turn into facts through the accumulation of evidence. Rather, theories are the end points of science. They are understandings that develop from extensive observation, experimentation, and creative reflection. They incorporate a large body of scientific facts, laws, tested hypotheses, and logical inferences. In this sense, evolution is one of the strongest and most useful scientific theories we have.

Here is another nice page of what a theory is:

"In common usage a theory is often viewed as little more than a guess or a hypothesis. But in science and generally in academic usage, a theory is much more than that. A theory is an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. In science, a theory can never be proven true, because we can never assume we know all there is to know. Instead, theories remain standing until they are disproven, at which point they are thrown out altogether or modified slightly.

Theories start out with empirical observations such as “sometimes water turns into ice.” At some point, there is a need or curiosity to find out why this is, which leads to a theoretical/scientific phase. In scientific theories, this then leads to research, in combination with auxiliary and other hypotheses (see scientific method), which may then eventually lead to a theory. Some scientific theories (such as the theory of gravity) are so widely accepted that they are often seen as laws. This, however, rests on a mistaken assumption of what theories and laws are. Theories and laws are not rungs in a ladder of truth, but different sets of data. A law is a general statement based on observations."

For Laws:

"A well-known example is that of Newton's law of gravity: while it describes the world accurately for most pertinent observations, such as of the movements of astronomical objects in the solar system, it was found to be inaccurate when applied to extremely large masses or velocities. Einstein's theory of general relativity, however, accurately handles gravitational interactions at those extreme conditions, in addition to the range covered by Newton's law. Newton's formula for gravity is still used in most circumstances, as an easier-to-calculate approximation of gravitational law. A similar relationship exists between Maxwell's equations and the theory of quantum electrodynamics; there are several such cases. This suggests the (unanswered) question of whether there are any ultimately true physical laws, or whether they are all just cases where our sensory and rational apparatus have generated mathematically simple approximations, valid within the range of normal human experience, to unobtainable true formulas."

60 posted on 12/21/2005 6:52:05 AM PST by RadioAstronomer (Senior member of Darwin Central)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 501-515 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson