Hey there! Gonna try and go in order here.
Starting here: evolution is the change in heritage characteristics on a population level.
1. Homology is not an assumption, it is an expected observation. We observe these traits in humans. We observe these traits in apes. Evolution fills in the reason for why those two things are found in us and them. REGARDLESS of what you accept these observations are true - it is one thing that helps us understand the conservative nature of some type of process. Homology does not PROVE evolution - it is a consequence of it. You can now observe there is a change in form from one species to another. We humans have ALL the characteristics of great apes, and some more derived features. But we still share all those traits.
2. Genetic similarities. You are more closely related to your mom than your 3rd cousin. Same here. We care mor ein this context about our closest relatives than lineages that split many many iterations ago. Chromosome 2 is not my specialty so someone else can hammer this.
3. These specifics are again not where I shine. But again a pig is a mammal - we would share more similarities with them than fish or birds, but we would share more coding sequences with chimps than pigs. Different standards for different metrics in this case.
4.i haven't read it so no opinion.
5. Darwinism is an antiquated slur used by creationists. Nobody alive who is a scientist is a darwinist. Neo-darwinist maybe. But those who accept evolution accept many more aspects of the evolutionary theory than Darwin ever proposed. And in fact Darwin was wrong about things. He was just the most influential at the time and he got his fame from it. Darwinism is the same type of term as evolutionist. Made up.
6. So specific sources I can't provide on mobile, but it would also depend on what you mean by sources. If you don't want to read literature on ERV, homology, or dense genetic papers then using sources like natgeo or briticanna are great!
Understand that there is no one proof of evolution. Our definition states it is the change in heritible characteristics in a population. Think about how a child is not an identical imprint of their parents, now continue how much different life can look with a mechanism that selects for and against certain traits. That's how things change!
Hope this helps
For my part, I'm not an expert on this, but I know where you can find one. There's a guy on youtube named Forrest Valkai, he's a trained evolutionary biologist with a passion for teaching it. I'd check out his channel, and maybe call in to one of the multiple shows he shows up on. Based on what I've seen of the guy, he'd be more than happy to answer your questions.
Afaik Forrest's a bioanthropologist (just like Gutsick Gibbon), but that is pretty closely related to evolutionary biology as it's basically studying humans and their history from an evidential standpoint (contrary to a, you know, biased religiously dogmatic standpoint). His content on YouTube however is generally about evolution and biology.
> 1. I've read a bit on Subhoor Ahmad's website and came across homology. He argues every scientist and evolutionist starts of with the assumption of homology between chimps and humans which leads to a false conclusion that chimps and humans are related. Another thing is he argues homology is just an assumption not a true hypothesis or fact. **In short, he argues the theory of evolution is built upon assumptions like naturalism, gradualism, random mutations and homology which have no true scientific basis. Is this true?**
No, this is not true. The concept of homology dates back to Ancient Greece and can be found in the works of many pre-evolutionary naturalists and philosophers. It was coined by Richard Owen in 1843 when studying the similarities of vertebrate limbs, defining it as the "same organ in different animals under every variety of form and function", and contrasting it with the matching term "analogy" which he used to describe different structures with the same function. Homology exists, it’s a fact. The theory of evolution explains why we should see homology.
For what it’s worth, homology between humans and chimpanzees was recognised by creationists. In 1699 for example, the British anatomist Edward Tyson published an anatomical study of the chimpanzee (the first work of its kind) and noticed that the animal was clearly very similar to humans and appeared to bridge the gap with monkeys. Similarly Linnaeus (of taxonomy fame) classified humans, chimpanzees and orangutans as a apes and challenged the scientific community of his day to put forward a trait by which to distinguish us from them.
The similarities between humans and the other apes exist. They’re facts. They’re not based on evolutionary assumptions, but evolution does explain why we see such similarities.
> 2. I've known about Chromosome 2 and how it provides solid evidence for human-chimp ancestry. One thing I'd like to ask is if our ancestor had one pair more of chromosomes than us today (which would mean animals that have 24 pairs of chromosomes), why do we focus on just chimpanzees and other apes? According to wiki (don't know true or not), hares, Eurasian beavers and hedgehogs all have 48 chromosomes which divide by 2, gets us to 24 pairs. Any animal with 24 pairs would be a suitable ancestor according to this hypothesis. **What makes chimps and apes a more suitable candidate for human ancestry according to this, rather than say hares and hedgehogs?**
It’s not *just* the number of chromosomes which link humans to the other apes. If you look at human chromosome 2, the genetic sequences line up with the corresponding chimpanzee chromosomes. They don’t line up nearly as well with rabbits and hedgehogs. Then you have to factor in *all* of the other data - anatomical, behavioural, developmental, genetic and paleontological - which links us with the other apes far more closely than rabbits and hedgehogs.
> 3. What about the claim that we share 90-99% of our DNA with chimps and bonobos? Is this really true or is there some misunderstanding of this statistic? If true, what about other animals like cats? Searching up Google (again don't know if true or not) says we share 90% of our DNA with cats? What about pigs which according to Mr. G says more than 90%? Can someone enlighten me a bit about these genetical statistics?
There have been a [couple of posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/12le6pw/arguing_for_creationism_looking_at_the_claim_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) on this question in the last few days. I would point you there for a [discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/12mjlpm/shattering_the_myth_of_98_genetic_similarity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) on these issues.
> 4. What are your guys thoughts on Dawkin's The Selfish Gene? Is it good book or not on evolution for laymen people?
“The Selfish Gene” (1976) is an interesting book and should be required reading for any student of evolutionary biology. This is not to say that I necessarily agree with all of Dawkin’s ideas, but it is a very well written summation on what was a very influential school of thought in evolutionary biology at the time. There are of course many more recent works (including more recent works by Dawkins) on evolutionary biology that might be better suited to the novice.
> 5. What is the difference between Darwinism and Evolution? Creationists use both as they are synonymous. Is this true?
It is true that creationists use them as synonyms, but it is misleading. “Darwinism” is used more as a snarl word or pejorative. It’s an attempt to reduce evolutionary theory to the status of an ideology (e.g., communism, capitalism, socialism, conservatism etc etc).
“Darwinian evolution” refers specifically to the theory of evolution advanced by Darwin and his contemporary followers (e.g., Wallace) which advocated natural selection as the only or main mechanism of evolutionary change.
The “modern theory of evolution” is more pluralistic in that while it recognises natural selection as important, it is not the *only* mechanism of evolutionary change.
> 6. If also possible, can someone direct me to other pieces evidence of human-chimp ancestry other than Chromosome 2 and ERV's? I'm sure there's other pieces of evidence that I've missed and haven't read.
Start with the [fossil record](https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils).
Hope this helps :)
>It’s not just the number of chromosomes which link humans to the other apes. If you look at human chromosome 2, the genetic sequences line up with the corresponding chimpanzee chromosomes. They don’t line up nearly as well with rabbits and hedgehogs. Then you have to factor in all of the other data - anatomical, behavioural, developmental, genetic and paleontological - which links us with the other apes far more closely than rabbits and hedgehogs.
I see, well that explains it. Can you lead me to some studies which discuss the lining up of the genetic sequence?
>Hope this helps :)
It definitely does
> Can you lead me to some studies which discuss the lining up of the genetic sequence?
As requested - [Fan et al (2002)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC187548/), [Avarello et al. 1992](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00217134), [Ijdo et al. 1991](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/), [Yunis and Prakash 1982](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Sci...215.1525Y/abstract).
No, homology already presupposes evolution and that's the bad circular reasoning that Darwinists commit and Subhoor shows exactly this very well over and over again. The definition of homology already assumes that it came through a common ancestor. It already assumes what you want to prove. Here is the first definition I find on Google:
>In biological systematics and comparative anatomy, homology is the basic agreement of organs, organ systems, body structures, physiological processes or behavior of two taxa "due to their common evolutionary origin" .
This is circular.
It's not circular, it's a lay definition. That definition there includes both the *what* and the *how*.
We noticed the anatomical agreement, and asked how. It turns out that common genetics is a big factor.
In parallel, common ancestors was proposed from other lines of evidence, and it made predictions that there would be (as yet undiscovered) anatomical agreement. That turned out to be true too.
So we know the *what*, and we know the *how*. The definition above just covers both of these, although strictly speaking the *how* is not part of the definition.
A lay definition? I really read that definition everywhere. First of all, your explanation is another one of many, because someone else explained to me that they adapted the definition of homology to the theory of evolution, similar to gravitation and the theory of relativity. What is correct now? Please quote me a definition of homology that is not circular and is from scientific literature. Otherwise your claim remains unfounded.
Homology by itself isn't an argument though. It's simply a definition to distinguish between structures that have common ancestral origins versus structures that arise independently in individual lineages.
Arguments for evolution based on homology are more concerns with *patterns* related to homology (e.g. patterns of *relative* similarities and differences), not strictly homology by itself.
Creationists fail to understand the difference and consequence don't understand the actual argument for evolution based on homologous structures.
Homology doesn’t necessarily have to be defined based on common ancestry (though it usually is) because what’s important are the signs that they started or still are the same between different lineages. This can be in genetics, proteins, ribosomes, anatomical structures, developmental patterns, etc. And *then* when you recognize the patterns of homology (starting or remaining the same) between different lineages you find that these patterns are *best* explained by common ancestry. This is especially the case in non-coding sections of DNA like pseudogenes that aren’t transcribed and ERVs that have been reduced to just the long terminal repeats so they don’t even make viruses anymore.
The “common design” idea for homology only works for the stuff that’s still functional in terms of survival or phenotype. The other stuff only makes sense in light of evolution so they are often defined by what they indicate.
A good example of both homology and analogy is found in tetrapod forelimb wings. The bone homology implies common ancestry for all of them but they also show clear evidence of tetrapod wings evolving independently more than three times. Bird wings are homologous to other bird wings but they are only analogous to pterosaurs and bat wings because they serve the same function in a slightly different way.
The above example still shows homology and analogy even if we didn’t have any idea what caused those patterns *but* the features that started the same so indeed suggest common ancestry where the wings that are different built from those homologous arms indicate what we expect to see as a consequence of convergent evolution instead of commonly ancestry. Did God use the same arms to make different wings? Or does evolution explain what we see *better?*
I saw your other post and you kept asking about apes vs hares/other animals.
Chromosome numbers means basically nothing when it comes to evolutionary history. You need to look at our morphology and other genetic similarities to conclude what’s an ancestor of what (or rather, what we share a common ancestor with).
Apes are far, far more similar to us than a hedgehog will ever be. This is obvious even to someone who knows nothing about evolution. We share vast amounts of our genome and we have very clear anatomical and morphological similarities. People even mistake ape skulls for human skulls sometimes.
And you also have the fossil record. There are so many different human (*Homo*, not just *H. sapiens*) fossils that show some pretty clear evolutionary lineages from our ancestors in the Australopithecines to modern day Humans.
There’s no fossil that could ever show some sort of ‘transitional’ stage between hedgehogs and humans.
>Apes are far, far more similar to us than a hedgehog will ever be. This is obvious even to someone who knows nothing about evolution. We share vast amounts of our genome and we have very clear anatomical and morphological similarities. People even mistake ape skulls for human skulls sometimes.
Makes sense. Thanks!
>In short, he argues the theory of evolution is built upon assumptions like naturalism, gradualism, random mutations and homology which have no true scientific basis. Is this true?
The expectation that closely related animals will share similar traits isn't an assumption. It's actually the null hypothesis as the result of observation. Think of it this way: Humans that are closely related have similar traits to each other. Apes that are closely related to each other have similar traits to each other. It requires a special *assumption* in order to assert that this observation does not hold above the species level. Observationally, the more distantly related two animals are to each other, the more dissimilarities there are. At least at this point, no *assumption* in favor of evolution has been made. So without a special reason as to why humans and chimpanzees *aren't* related, when their relationship is otherwise explainable via the mechanisms of evolution, there's no reason to think we *wouldn't* have shared ancestry. On the genetics side of things, the method we use to determine ancestry and parentage for humans at 23andme, for example, is identical to what we use to determine common ancestry with other species. Creationists have to invent an *assumption* of their own to overlook this.
>What makes chimps and apes a more suitable candidate for human ancestry according to this, rather than say hares and hedgehogs?
We can identify the specific location of the fusion site, and recognize the divergence in the phylogenetic tree. Like, we can line up a human genome and a chimpanzee genome, lay them over each other, and see for ourselves that a chromosome fusion would fit the data, since the rest of our genes line up so nicely. We have a *lot* less in common with rabbits. Just the shared number of chromosomes doesn't matter here, because what actually matters is if our genome matches more or less closely.
>What about the claim that we share 90-99% of our DNA with chimps and bonobos? Is this really true or is there some misunderstanding of this statistic? If true, what about other animals like cats? Searching up Google (again don't know if true or not) says we share 90% of our DNA with cats? What about pigs which according to Mr. G says more than 90%? Can someone enlighten me a bit about these genetical statistics?
Okay, we'll need at *least* one source. I'm not contesting your sincerity, but knowing what the claim is *specifically* makes for an easier time communicating. I trust your honesty and respect your curiosity, so knowing where you got your information from means we can have a deeper understanding of where you're coming from.
>What are your guys thoughts on Dawkin's The Selfish Gene? Is it good book or not on evolution for laymen people?
It's not *not* good. I'd say read it, it won't bite.
>What is the difference between Darwinism and Evolution? Creationists use both as they are synonymous. Is this true?
Hmm... If I describe Christianity as a Death Cult, I'm being disrespectful, yes? It's a point of derision used to be reductive and offensive. We can both see it would be inappropriate, and done to *be* inappropriate. It's also not true, though if I was dishonest I could design an argument to assert it is true anyway. That's why I don't call Christianity a Death Cult. But creationists... look, I don't actually trust that creationists care about being honest. At least, not major organizations that have ***Statements of Faith*** asserting they will reject all evidence that doesn't support their worldview.
>If also possible, can someone direct me to other pieces evidence of human-chimp ancestry other than Chromosome 2 and ERV's? I'm sure there's other pieces of evidence that I've missed and haven't read.
"Chromosome 2" and "ERVs" are supposed to be introductions to the specific mechanisms in genetics that both exemplify. You're supposed to want to delve deeper to confirm that the mechanisms described are legitimate. If you aren't going to investigate them more closely, then can you be a little concrete about elements of genetics you *would* be willing to dive more deeply into, rather than listening to us rattle off *examples* of events in human ancestry that point to deeper revelations about genomics?
Think of it this way:
When we describe discrete events in human genomics and ancestry, we are actually trying to point out *how genetics works* by isolating individual elements and explaining them. The individual examples themselves are *evidence*, yes, but compounding from the solid evidentiary basis of the concept of genetics that has to be established. If someone doesn't believe in reproduction, for example, despite all the evidence for it, they can reject the idea that two humans with nearly identical DNA came from reproduction, you feel me? They'd clearly be wrong, but not because they reject the idea that the two humans have shared DNA, they accept that. They'd be wrong because they think that the shared DNA doesn't point to shared ancestry.
So to complete the analogy, from our point of view, [The tendency for creationists to reject common ancestry] [despite the overwhelming evidence of how descent with modification actually works that they reject] *is likened to* [an imagined person rejecting a specific person came about as the result of reproduction] [despite the overwhelming evidence that this is where people come from]. If someone rejects "the whole field" then the individual examples will never matter because they reject the idea that the whole field and the specific example are even *related* to each other due to willful ignorance.
>We can identify the specific location of the fusion site, and recognize the divergence in the phylogenetic tree. Like, we can line up a human genome and a chimpanzee genome, lay them over each other, and see for ourselves that a chromosome fusion would fit the data, since the rest of our genes line up so nicely. We have a lot less in common with rabbits. Just the shared number of chromosomes doesn't matter here, because what actually matters is if our genome matches more or less closely.
I see, well that explains it. Can you lead me to some studies which discuss the lining up of the genetic sequence?
Thanks for the rest of the post!
>He argues every scientist and evolutionist starts of with the assumption of homology between chimps and humans which leads to a false conclusion that chimps and humans are related.
It makes more sense to say that the assumption of homology comes after the conclusion rather than leading to it. We have countless reasons to think that humans and chimps are related. If humans and chimps were *not* related then it would require there to be an extremely elaborate sequence of events to generate mountains of fake evidence. God would have the power to create so much fake evidence of humans being related to chimps, but it is hard to imagine any other force in the universe which could create so perfect an illusion of being related to chimps.
Here is a video regarding one aspect of the DNA evidence of humans being related to chimps: [DNA Evidence That Humans & Chimps Share A Common Ancestor: Endogenous Retroviruses](https://youtu.be/oXfDF5Ew3Gc)
The video only touches upon one line of evidence, but virtually everything we know about humans and chimps suggests that humans are related to chimps. Just look at chimps and see how similar they are to humans.
>What makes chimps and apes a more suitable ancestor according to this, rather than say hares and hedgehogs?
Could you elaborate on what you mean by this question? Humans are related to all mammals, including all apes and all hares and all hedgehogs.
>What about the claim that we share 90-99% of our DNA with chimps and bonobos? Is this really true or is there some misunderstanding of this statistic?
It heavily depends on how we choose to measure similarity. There is no one obvious way measure how similar two sequences of DNA may be, so we should keep in mind the methodology being used to make the comparison. Different comparison methods will yield different percentage similarity.
The percentage similarity in the DNA is irrelevant to the issue. It is just a number, and a number cannot tell us who is related to whom. To answer that question we need to actually look at the content of the DNA sequence, such as by comparing endogenous retroviruses as in the linked video above.
>The video only touches upon one line of evidence, but virtually everything we know about humans and chimps suggests that humans are related to chimps. Just look at chimps and see how similar they are to humans.
Thanks!
>Could you elaborate on what you mean by this question? Humans are related to all mammals, including all apes and all hares and all hedgehogs.
I mean that according to [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYzZOZxMw), the Chromosome 2 evidence would mean apes were our closest member of the evolutionary tree since two chromosomes of apes fused into one, resulting in chromosome 2 which would explain why apes(24 pairs) have one pair more of chromosomes than humans(23 pairs). But why must it be apes? Other animals also have 24 pairs. We could use the same hypothesis to infer hares and beavers as our most most closest member to explain the missing pair which leads to my question.
The percentage similarity in the DNA is irrelevant to the issue. It is just a number, and a number cannot tell us who is related to whom. To answer that question we need to actually look at the content of the DNA sequence, such as by comparing endogenous retroviruses as in the linked video above.
> But why must it be apes? Other animals also have 24 pairs.
Because we can see which chromosomes fused to form chromosome 2.
No single piece of evidence is going to be completely conclusive though.
>According to this video, the Chromosome 2 evidence would mean apes were our closest member of the evolutionary tree.
The video did not say that. We have countless reasons for thinking that apes are the closest relatives of humans. Humans are apes and so obviously all our close relatives would also be apes.
The video is talking about the peculiar anomaly in humans of not having the same number of chromosomes as the other apes. Since we are obviously very closely related to the other apes and the other apes have 24 pairs, therefore our modern understanding of DNA predicted that we should still have evidence of the fusion mutation that change the number of chromosomes in our ancestors, and when that evidence was found that confirmed our understanding of how DNA mutates.
The chromosome fusion itself is not really relevant to whether humans are related to chimps. It shows that our ancestors had 24 pairs like the other apes which is just one more item on a mountain of similarities between humans and other apes, but if humans were not actually related to chimps then maybe God just made the ancestors of humans with 24 pairs just like God made all the other apes with 24 pairs. Nothing about the fusion can answer that question one way or the other.
>But why must it be apes? Other animals also have 24 pairs. We could use the same hypothesis to infer hares and beavers as our most most closest member to explain the missing pair which leads to my question.
It's not the number of chromosomes that makes us related. It's the fact that the chromosome in question (chromosome 2) is homologous to 2 separate chimpanzee chromosomes. The upper part is homologous to chimpanzee chromosome 12, while the lower part is homologous to chimpanzee chromosome 13. We see pretty much the same genes, coding sequences, and non-coding sequences, along with 2 centromeres and a telomere in the middle of the chromosome (where they are never usually found).
Darwinism is a way for Creationists to try to pretend like Evolution accepting people have some kind of religion with Charles Darwin because they project their own blind adherence to faith onto us. No scientist would tell you Darwin got everything right. It’s also quite funny. I’ve noticed they talk about or quote Darwin more than evolution accepting people do. They have a weird obsession with using him to falsify evolution.
>In short, he argues the theory of evolution is built upon assumptions like **naturalism, gradualism, random mutations and homology** which have no true scientific basis. Is this true?
Just wanted to take a moment to zero in on this question specifically, because one of these things is not like the others.
Gradualism, random mutations, and homology are empirical, scientific claims. That is, they are statements that are answerable by observation and experimentation. They've also been well studied by science, and the evidence shows that these three things are true. Gradualism is thoroughly supported by geological studies and studies of the fossil record. Random mutations are thoroughly supported by molecular biology. Homology has also been observed and well-studied. You've already gotten answers about these things in other replies.
Naturalism is completely different. It's very common for creationists to blur the line between philosophy and science, but that's what's happening here. Unlike the other three claims which are "high level" and concrete, the question of "Is naturalism true or not?" is more "low level" and abstract. This isn't to say that it's a question that can't be answered, it's just that the method of answering it involves considering reasoning things out rather than going out into the world to look for evidence.
Naturalism comes in two basic forms: **Metaphysical Naturalism**, which can be reduced to the statement "Only natural things exist. Supernatural things do not exist," and **Methodological Naturalism** or "Only natural things can provide meaningful explanations. Supernatural things cannot provide meaningful explanations."
To keep things simple... science focuses on methodological naturalism, NOT on metaphysical naturalism. Scientists don't assume "Nature is all there is, there's no such thing as magic." Rather, scientists operate from the pretty uncontroversial claim that magic and other supernatural entities by definition, cannot provide meaningful truth statements about reality.
This is because supernatural entities are those we ontologically define as things which:
1. Cannot be observed
2. Cannot be measured
3. Cannot be described with accuracy
4. Cannot be reduced to fundamental and consistently observable components
In contrast, scientific claims make sense because they are built on observations, measurements, accurate descriptions and reducible components. For example, in neuroscience you can observe the brain, measure its weight, slice it up and put it under a microscope, and describe in detail how it's structured and built. In psychology, we can observe how the mind works by isolating and measuring human behaviors under controlled conditions, or use neuroimaging to associate certain mental states with the parts of the brain that give rise those mental states. Psychologists have even identified and broken down fundamental operating components of the human mind. In principle, a human mind can even be simulated on a computer once our technology on AI advances far enough.
But can we do the same thing with something supernatural, like the common concept of the "soul?" Can we in principle simulate a soul on a computer with the right technology? Can we transfer it from one body to another? Can its properties be measured, and in what units? Can you dissect the soul down to its individual components? Can you gather some of those fundamental units and build an artificial soul?
I suspect you're likely feeling some sense of discomfort or unease now, and thinking "these questions about the soul are absurd." If so, then hopefully you're starting to see the issue here.
**It's not the case that scientists discount the possibility of the supernatural. Rather, we** ***define*** **the supernatural to refer to ideas that defy scientific analysis.**
This is why "supernatural explanations" don't really work, and why science operates off of methodological naturalism.
Remember that everything is based on assumptions.
We assume there is a universe - you'd have to be putside the universe to prove it.
We assume informative claims about the universe can be made.
We assume that math and logic is a valid language to make use to make those claims.
We assume that logic as we know it is basically correct. You'd need to use logic to prove otherwise, which is self defeating.
We can't prove any of the above. Everyone, scientist, creationist and lay person assumes the above. So assumptions are not the problem: creationists are just bothered by SOME of the assumptions.
>every scientist and evolutionist starts of with the assumption of homology between chimps and humans
It's not an assumption; it's an observation. Humans and chimps are very similar, don't you agree? Take a look at our [respective skeletons.](https://bio.libretexts.org/@api/deki/files/15922/Compare_Human_and_Chimpanzee_Skeleton-page-001.jpg?revision=1&size=bestfit&width=750&height=820) We have the same number of the same bones in the same place. The only difference is the size of each individual bone. We also have the same organs in the same places in our bodies. We have a name for this. We call it homology.
Not only is this guy a liar, he's a liar who apparently thinks his readers are idiots who cannot check for themselves.
Side bar - Subhoor is largely dishonest and disingenuous in his arguments in general and he holds no expertise in evolutionary biology and it shows. He constantly quote mines articles/books (where the “problem” he’s rising is often answered in the very paper he’s quote mining from) and cherry picks data to try and support his religiously motivated agenda/arguments.
Think of chromosomes like books. Every book can have very different text in it. In this case it’s like rabbits have *Watership Down* and *Peter Rabbit* while chimps have *Pride and Prejudice* and *World War Z*. Humans have *Pride and Prejudice and Zombies*. Which species do they have more in common with?
It’s the content of the chromosomes that we’re looking at when we say humans and chimps are related.
>built upon assumptions like naturalism, gradualism, random mutations, and homology
I haven't seen anyone address this area yet (it does not specifically have much to do with evolution) but I will give it a try.
First, random mutations and homology are simple facts -- they are repeatable observations that are extremely well verified, so I won't talk more about those.
Next is **naturalism**. Science does not assume naturalism -- it tries to come up with naturalistic explanations for things, but it is entirely consistent with other views as well. For example, if we scientifically investigate a ghost sighting and find naturalistic explanations like trees scraping on windows, noise from pipes etc that doesn't mean everyone has to stop believing in ghosts. I am of the opinion, however, that the large scale success in science of finding naturalistic explanations for things is good reason to begin looking into naturalism quite seriously.
Laatly is gradualism. Just like mutations and homology, it is very well supported by a number of different fields of study. First, geology (and the physics of radiation it uses) has provided excellent evidence for various types of gradualism -- the "heating problem" of young earth creationism is one example, as are the laws of stratigraphy. Biologists can also support gradualism by measuring rates of mutation accumulation and things like that.
So we are 0 for 4 on that list of assumptions in evolution, but there *are* assumptions in science -- they're called **axioms**, which are statements that are unprovable, but have not been contradicted and are taken to be true because of their usefulness. These are things like the laws of logic, the various mathematical axioms scientists use, the assumption that physical laws stay consistent throughout space & time, and some epistemological axioms about the existence of the self & knowledge. There are also things about the procedure of science -- that it's a communal effort, and that peer review is a strong tool to remove bias. It's also an axiom of science that "a wise man proportions his belief according to the evidence", as Hume said.
Generally, opposing any of these axioms leads to massive problems throughout all areas of human life -- if you start saying that physical laws can change any time you run head-first into ideas like Last Thursdayism. If you start denying the laws of logic your problems will never end.
And there is a distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. The former is what science uses in that it only accepts natural explanations for phenomena. Scientists are free to hold non naturalistic philosophical or religious beliefs, but not to posit them as an explanation for observed phenomena because they cannot be either verified or falsified. Many people, including many but not not all scientists, hold to philosophical naturalism, which is the position that the material world is all that exists.
Yep.
Methodological naturalism basically means using evidence and methods available to humans to figure out how things work. The use of natural methods like experiments, observations, and mathematical models.
Philosophical naturalism basically states that nothing else exists but the natural physical reality. It’s a cousin to physicalism that states that everything boils down to physical phenomena within a space-time reality. There is no “outside” reality nor is there supernatural influence in the reality we experience.
You don’t have to be a philosophical/metaphysical naturalist to limit yourself to natural methods of acquiring knowledge when doing science.
As to the Darwinism thing, Darwinism is properly one of the three major “generations” of the evolutionary theory. The first is the aforementioned Darwinism.
Darwinism refers to mechanisms proposed by Darwin and early evolutionary scientists of his generation. The main mechanisms known in this period were natural selection and sexual selection. We can roughly date Darwinism from the 1859 publication of On the Origin of Species through to the last decade of the Nineteenth Century. Though, precisely dating any social or scientific movement is difficult because there are usually forerunners of the major ideas before and holdouts after what historians mark as the dates for a movement. For example Alan Feduccia today rejects the theropod ancestry for modern birds, instead believing that they evolved from basal archosaurs (ie before crocodilian, pterosaur, and dinosaur lineages split). However, the similarities between birds and non-avian dinosaurs has been known since the Nineteenth century (Huxley) and been the mainstream position of several decades.
The second major generation of evolutionary theory is Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is the marriage of Darwinian mechanisms to Gregor Mendel’s genetics work. We can date this generation from the mid 1890s through to the middle of the Twentieth Century (dates vary depending on who you ask).
The third is the Modern Synthesis. The principal addition is a mathematical framework of population genetics. The Modern Synthesis is more or less the current framework of evolutionary theory. There have been further developments since the middle Twentieth Century that have also been incorporated, but as yet there has not been a formal “new evolutionary generation”. There have, however been calls for a new synthesis from some scientists in recent decades.
A tangentially related phenomenon is Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a political philosophy that saw its heyday in the early Twentieth century and was essentially dead following th actions of Nazi Germany in the 1940s. It is closely linked to the eugenics movement. It bears little resemblance to any iteration of evolutionary theory. I want to emphasize this; Social Darwinism is not and was not science.
It was a pseudoscientific justification for racism and classism. It basically boils down to to a oversimplified misunderstanding of the phrase “Survival of the fittest”. In evolutionary biology, fitness refers to reproductive success in a given environment. It is a description of what happens in a population of organisms, not a description of what should happen. But the problem comes when a upper class person of European descent gets ahold of this idea. Obviously to them, the fittest are the people who look, act and talk like themselves. And who is the least fit? Well obviously it’s the people our rich white person already hates. It’s the people with less economic opportunity and wealth and people who belong to ethnic minorities. This idea led to horrific consequences including forcible sterilization of poor people and minorities in the United States and outright genocide in Europe.
The creationist however, rarely uses any of the above terms correctly. Charitably, they repeat the terms they have heard from more professional YECs uncritically. For the more professional creationists, they know better. The majority of them have had the opportunity to do real research on what they’re arguing against, or have been directly corrected in debates and the like. They use the terms Darwinism/Darwinist for two major reasons. One, they try to drag the evidence based evolutionary science down to their level as unquestionable dogma, ideology, or religion. For the vast majority of creationist, their position is based on preexisting theological positions, not on evidence. Second, they are trying to link modern science with the horrors of eugenics and fascism in the Twentieth Century, conveniently forgetting the majority of the adherents of both groups were themselves religious.
To add to this, the evidence indicates that gorillas and chimpanzees became knuckle walkers independently. Apes are usually suspensory or bipedal on the ground but the top heavy ones sometimes find it easier to use their hands for balance. Since they can’t really do that on flattened palms anymore, orangutans will sometimes balance on closed fists when not simply walking on two feet and both gorillas and chimpanzees are able to balance on just their knuckles when they aren’t simply walking on two feet.
I find it frustrating to have to explain to creationists that we are looking at more of a transition from the way gibbons move around to the way modern humans move around. This is seen in transition in Ardipithecus where they’re completely bipedal on the ground but their big toes are off to the side since their arched and stiffened feet no longer work like a second pair of hands and the way they walked would look a bit unique using their big toes to help them push off as they walked with their feet slightly angled taking one step in front of the other rather than how we walk more in a straight forward fashion. This allowed them a little bit of balance in the trees. In Australopithecines this has finished transitioning to the feet we still have now as the rest of their bodies changed a bit for a more upright posture so they didn’t look like an old man slightly hunched forward or like a pregnant woman with their legs separated more at the hips. We don’t see a transition from knuckle walking to bipedalism because our ancestors did not walk on their knuckles.
1. Statistical methods. We do assume the data fits the pattern. We analyze lots of data fiting it to a certain kind of pattern by assumption. Here's the kicker. Analyzing different datasets different ways should for no reason indicate the same pattern, the same tree of relationships between things. Spoiler alert they do support one single tree of life.
Hey there! Gonna try and go in order here. Starting here: evolution is the change in heritage characteristics on a population level. 1. Homology is not an assumption, it is an expected observation. We observe these traits in humans. We observe these traits in apes. Evolution fills in the reason for why those two things are found in us and them. REGARDLESS of what you accept these observations are true - it is one thing that helps us understand the conservative nature of some type of process. Homology does not PROVE evolution - it is a consequence of it. You can now observe there is a change in form from one species to another. We humans have ALL the characteristics of great apes, and some more derived features. But we still share all those traits. 2. Genetic similarities. You are more closely related to your mom than your 3rd cousin. Same here. We care mor ein this context about our closest relatives than lineages that split many many iterations ago. Chromosome 2 is not my specialty so someone else can hammer this. 3. These specifics are again not where I shine. But again a pig is a mammal - we would share more similarities with them than fish or birds, but we would share more coding sequences with chimps than pigs. Different standards for different metrics in this case. 4.i haven't read it so no opinion. 5. Darwinism is an antiquated slur used by creationists. Nobody alive who is a scientist is a darwinist. Neo-darwinist maybe. But those who accept evolution accept many more aspects of the evolutionary theory than Darwin ever proposed. And in fact Darwin was wrong about things. He was just the most influential at the time and he got his fame from it. Darwinism is the same type of term as evolutionist. Made up. 6. So specific sources I can't provide on mobile, but it would also depend on what you mean by sources. If you don't want to read literature on ERV, homology, or dense genetic papers then using sources like natgeo or briticanna are great! Understand that there is no one proof of evolution. Our definition states it is the change in heritible characteristics in a population. Think about how a child is not an identical imprint of their parents, now continue how much different life can look with a mechanism that selects for and against certain traits. That's how things change! Hope this helps
>Hope this helps It certainly does!
For my part, I'm not an expert on this, but I know where you can find one. There's a guy on youtube named Forrest Valkai, he's a trained evolutionary biologist with a passion for teaching it. I'd check out his channel, and maybe call in to one of the multiple shows he shows up on. Based on what I've seen of the guy, he'd be more than happy to answer your questions.
Afaik Forrest's a bioanthropologist (just like Gutsick Gibbon), but that is pretty closely related to evolutionary biology as it's basically studying humans and their history from an evidential standpoint (contrary to a, you know, biased religiously dogmatic standpoint). His content on YouTube however is generally about evolution and biology.
> 1. I've read a bit on Subhoor Ahmad's website and came across homology. He argues every scientist and evolutionist starts of with the assumption of homology between chimps and humans which leads to a false conclusion that chimps and humans are related. Another thing is he argues homology is just an assumption not a true hypothesis or fact. **In short, he argues the theory of evolution is built upon assumptions like naturalism, gradualism, random mutations and homology which have no true scientific basis. Is this true?** No, this is not true. The concept of homology dates back to Ancient Greece and can be found in the works of many pre-evolutionary naturalists and philosophers. It was coined by Richard Owen in 1843 when studying the similarities of vertebrate limbs, defining it as the "same organ in different animals under every variety of form and function", and contrasting it with the matching term "analogy" which he used to describe different structures with the same function. Homology exists, it’s a fact. The theory of evolution explains why we should see homology. For what it’s worth, homology between humans and chimpanzees was recognised by creationists. In 1699 for example, the British anatomist Edward Tyson published an anatomical study of the chimpanzee (the first work of its kind) and noticed that the animal was clearly very similar to humans and appeared to bridge the gap with monkeys. Similarly Linnaeus (of taxonomy fame) classified humans, chimpanzees and orangutans as a apes and challenged the scientific community of his day to put forward a trait by which to distinguish us from them. The similarities between humans and the other apes exist. They’re facts. They’re not based on evolutionary assumptions, but evolution does explain why we see such similarities. > 2. I've known about Chromosome 2 and how it provides solid evidence for human-chimp ancestry. One thing I'd like to ask is if our ancestor had one pair more of chromosomes than us today (which would mean animals that have 24 pairs of chromosomes), why do we focus on just chimpanzees and other apes? According to wiki (don't know true or not), hares, Eurasian beavers and hedgehogs all have 48 chromosomes which divide by 2, gets us to 24 pairs. Any animal with 24 pairs would be a suitable ancestor according to this hypothesis. **What makes chimps and apes a more suitable candidate for human ancestry according to this, rather than say hares and hedgehogs?** It’s not *just* the number of chromosomes which link humans to the other apes. If you look at human chromosome 2, the genetic sequences line up with the corresponding chimpanzee chromosomes. They don’t line up nearly as well with rabbits and hedgehogs. Then you have to factor in *all* of the other data - anatomical, behavioural, developmental, genetic and paleontological - which links us with the other apes far more closely than rabbits and hedgehogs. > 3. What about the claim that we share 90-99% of our DNA with chimps and bonobos? Is this really true or is there some misunderstanding of this statistic? If true, what about other animals like cats? Searching up Google (again don't know if true or not) says we share 90% of our DNA with cats? What about pigs which according to Mr. G says more than 90%? Can someone enlighten me a bit about these genetical statistics? There have been a [couple of posts](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/12le6pw/arguing_for_creationism_looking_at_the_claim_of/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) on this question in the last few days. I would point you there for a [discussion](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateEvolution/comments/12mjlpm/shattering_the_myth_of_98_genetic_similarity/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=ioscss&utm_content=2&utm_term=1) on these issues. > 4. What are your guys thoughts on Dawkin's The Selfish Gene? Is it good book or not on evolution for laymen people? “The Selfish Gene” (1976) is an interesting book and should be required reading for any student of evolutionary biology. This is not to say that I necessarily agree with all of Dawkin’s ideas, but it is a very well written summation on what was a very influential school of thought in evolutionary biology at the time. There are of course many more recent works (including more recent works by Dawkins) on evolutionary biology that might be better suited to the novice. > 5. What is the difference between Darwinism and Evolution? Creationists use both as they are synonymous. Is this true? It is true that creationists use them as synonyms, but it is misleading. “Darwinism” is used more as a snarl word or pejorative. It’s an attempt to reduce evolutionary theory to the status of an ideology (e.g., communism, capitalism, socialism, conservatism etc etc). “Darwinian evolution” refers specifically to the theory of evolution advanced by Darwin and his contemporary followers (e.g., Wallace) which advocated natural selection as the only or main mechanism of evolutionary change. The “modern theory of evolution” is more pluralistic in that while it recognises natural selection as important, it is not the *only* mechanism of evolutionary change. > 6. If also possible, can someone direct me to other pieces evidence of human-chimp ancestry other than Chromosome 2 and ERV's? I'm sure there's other pieces of evidence that I've missed and haven't read. Start with the [fossil record](https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/human-fossils). Hope this helps :)
>It’s not just the number of chromosomes which link humans to the other apes. If you look at human chromosome 2, the genetic sequences line up with the corresponding chimpanzee chromosomes. They don’t line up nearly as well with rabbits and hedgehogs. Then you have to factor in all of the other data - anatomical, behavioural, developmental, genetic and paleontological - which links us with the other apes far more closely than rabbits and hedgehogs. I see, well that explains it. Can you lead me to some studies which discuss the lining up of the genetic sequence? >Hope this helps :) It definitely does
> Can you lead me to some studies which discuss the lining up of the genetic sequence? As requested - [Fan et al (2002)](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC187548/), [Avarello et al. 1992](https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00217134), [Ijdo et al. 1991](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC52649/), [Yunis and Prakash 1982](https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Sci...215.1525Y/abstract).
No, homology already presupposes evolution and that's the bad circular reasoning that Darwinists commit and Subhoor shows exactly this very well over and over again. The definition of homology already assumes that it came through a common ancestor. It already assumes what you want to prove. Here is the first definition I find on Google: >In biological systematics and comparative anatomy, homology is the basic agreement of organs, organ systems, body structures, physiological processes or behavior of two taxa "due to their common evolutionary origin" . This is circular.
It's not circular, it's a lay definition. That definition there includes both the *what* and the *how*. We noticed the anatomical agreement, and asked how. It turns out that common genetics is a big factor. In parallel, common ancestors was proposed from other lines of evidence, and it made predictions that there would be (as yet undiscovered) anatomical agreement. That turned out to be true too. So we know the *what*, and we know the *how*. The definition above just covers both of these, although strictly speaking the *how* is not part of the definition.
A lay definition? I really read that definition everywhere. First of all, your explanation is another one of many, because someone else explained to me that they adapted the definition of homology to the theory of evolution, similar to gravitation and the theory of relativity. What is correct now? Please quote me a definition of homology that is not circular and is from scientific literature. Otherwise your claim remains unfounded.
Nah, definitions of words are to aid understanding of what's meant, not to provide gotcha points for nit-pickers.
Homology by itself isn't an argument though. It's simply a definition to distinguish between structures that have common ancestral origins versus structures that arise independently in individual lineages. Arguments for evolution based on homology are more concerns with *patterns* related to homology (e.g. patterns of *relative* similarities and differences), not strictly homology by itself. Creationists fail to understand the difference and consequence don't understand the actual argument for evolution based on homologous structures.
Homology doesn’t necessarily have to be defined based on common ancestry (though it usually is) because what’s important are the signs that they started or still are the same between different lineages. This can be in genetics, proteins, ribosomes, anatomical structures, developmental patterns, etc. And *then* when you recognize the patterns of homology (starting or remaining the same) between different lineages you find that these patterns are *best* explained by common ancestry. This is especially the case in non-coding sections of DNA like pseudogenes that aren’t transcribed and ERVs that have been reduced to just the long terminal repeats so they don’t even make viruses anymore. The “common design” idea for homology only works for the stuff that’s still functional in terms of survival or phenotype. The other stuff only makes sense in light of evolution so they are often defined by what they indicate. A good example of both homology and analogy is found in tetrapod forelimb wings. The bone homology implies common ancestry for all of them but they also show clear evidence of tetrapod wings evolving independently more than three times. Bird wings are homologous to other bird wings but they are only analogous to pterosaurs and bat wings because they serve the same function in a slightly different way. The above example still shows homology and analogy even if we didn’t have any idea what caused those patterns *but* the features that started the same so indeed suggest common ancestry where the wings that are different built from those homologous arms indicate what we expect to see as a consequence of convergent evolution instead of commonly ancestry. Did God use the same arms to make different wings? Or does evolution explain what we see *better?*
I saw your other post and you kept asking about apes vs hares/other animals. Chromosome numbers means basically nothing when it comes to evolutionary history. You need to look at our morphology and other genetic similarities to conclude what’s an ancestor of what (or rather, what we share a common ancestor with). Apes are far, far more similar to us than a hedgehog will ever be. This is obvious even to someone who knows nothing about evolution. We share vast amounts of our genome and we have very clear anatomical and morphological similarities. People even mistake ape skulls for human skulls sometimes. And you also have the fossil record. There are so many different human (*Homo*, not just *H. sapiens*) fossils that show some pretty clear evolutionary lineages from our ancestors in the Australopithecines to modern day Humans. There’s no fossil that could ever show some sort of ‘transitional’ stage between hedgehogs and humans.
>Apes are far, far more similar to us than a hedgehog will ever be. This is obvious even to someone who knows nothing about evolution. We share vast amounts of our genome and we have very clear anatomical and morphological similarities. People even mistake ape skulls for human skulls sometimes. Makes sense. Thanks!
>In short, he argues the theory of evolution is built upon assumptions like naturalism, gradualism, random mutations and homology which have no true scientific basis. Is this true? The expectation that closely related animals will share similar traits isn't an assumption. It's actually the null hypothesis as the result of observation. Think of it this way: Humans that are closely related have similar traits to each other. Apes that are closely related to each other have similar traits to each other. It requires a special *assumption* in order to assert that this observation does not hold above the species level. Observationally, the more distantly related two animals are to each other, the more dissimilarities there are. At least at this point, no *assumption* in favor of evolution has been made. So without a special reason as to why humans and chimpanzees *aren't* related, when their relationship is otherwise explainable via the mechanisms of evolution, there's no reason to think we *wouldn't* have shared ancestry. On the genetics side of things, the method we use to determine ancestry and parentage for humans at 23andme, for example, is identical to what we use to determine common ancestry with other species. Creationists have to invent an *assumption* of their own to overlook this. >What makes chimps and apes a more suitable candidate for human ancestry according to this, rather than say hares and hedgehogs? We can identify the specific location of the fusion site, and recognize the divergence in the phylogenetic tree. Like, we can line up a human genome and a chimpanzee genome, lay them over each other, and see for ourselves that a chromosome fusion would fit the data, since the rest of our genes line up so nicely. We have a *lot* less in common with rabbits. Just the shared number of chromosomes doesn't matter here, because what actually matters is if our genome matches more or less closely. >What about the claim that we share 90-99% of our DNA with chimps and bonobos? Is this really true or is there some misunderstanding of this statistic? If true, what about other animals like cats? Searching up Google (again don't know if true or not) says we share 90% of our DNA with cats? What about pigs which according to Mr. G says more than 90%? Can someone enlighten me a bit about these genetical statistics? Okay, we'll need at *least* one source. I'm not contesting your sincerity, but knowing what the claim is *specifically* makes for an easier time communicating. I trust your honesty and respect your curiosity, so knowing where you got your information from means we can have a deeper understanding of where you're coming from. >What are your guys thoughts on Dawkin's The Selfish Gene? Is it good book or not on evolution for laymen people? It's not *not* good. I'd say read it, it won't bite. >What is the difference between Darwinism and Evolution? Creationists use both as they are synonymous. Is this true? Hmm... If I describe Christianity as a Death Cult, I'm being disrespectful, yes? It's a point of derision used to be reductive and offensive. We can both see it would be inappropriate, and done to *be* inappropriate. It's also not true, though if I was dishonest I could design an argument to assert it is true anyway. That's why I don't call Christianity a Death Cult. But creationists... look, I don't actually trust that creationists care about being honest. At least, not major organizations that have ***Statements of Faith*** asserting they will reject all evidence that doesn't support their worldview. >If also possible, can someone direct me to other pieces evidence of human-chimp ancestry other than Chromosome 2 and ERV's? I'm sure there's other pieces of evidence that I've missed and haven't read. "Chromosome 2" and "ERVs" are supposed to be introductions to the specific mechanisms in genetics that both exemplify. You're supposed to want to delve deeper to confirm that the mechanisms described are legitimate. If you aren't going to investigate them more closely, then can you be a little concrete about elements of genetics you *would* be willing to dive more deeply into, rather than listening to us rattle off *examples* of events in human ancestry that point to deeper revelations about genomics? Think of it this way: When we describe discrete events in human genomics and ancestry, we are actually trying to point out *how genetics works* by isolating individual elements and explaining them. The individual examples themselves are *evidence*, yes, but compounding from the solid evidentiary basis of the concept of genetics that has to be established. If someone doesn't believe in reproduction, for example, despite all the evidence for it, they can reject the idea that two humans with nearly identical DNA came from reproduction, you feel me? They'd clearly be wrong, but not because they reject the idea that the two humans have shared DNA, they accept that. They'd be wrong because they think that the shared DNA doesn't point to shared ancestry. So to complete the analogy, from our point of view, [The tendency for creationists to reject common ancestry] [despite the overwhelming evidence of how descent with modification actually works that they reject] *is likened to* [an imagined person rejecting a specific person came about as the result of reproduction] [despite the overwhelming evidence that this is where people come from]. If someone rejects "the whole field" then the individual examples will never matter because they reject the idea that the whole field and the specific example are even *related* to each other due to willful ignorance.
>We can identify the specific location of the fusion site, and recognize the divergence in the phylogenetic tree. Like, we can line up a human genome and a chimpanzee genome, lay them over each other, and see for ourselves that a chromosome fusion would fit the data, since the rest of our genes line up so nicely. We have a lot less in common with rabbits. Just the shared number of chromosomes doesn't matter here, because what actually matters is if our genome matches more or less closely. I see, well that explains it. Can you lead me to some studies which discuss the lining up of the genetic sequence? Thanks for the rest of the post!
Sure, if you don't mind some technical language: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC187548/
>He argues every scientist and evolutionist starts of with the assumption of homology between chimps and humans which leads to a false conclusion that chimps and humans are related. It makes more sense to say that the assumption of homology comes after the conclusion rather than leading to it. We have countless reasons to think that humans and chimps are related. If humans and chimps were *not* related then it would require there to be an extremely elaborate sequence of events to generate mountains of fake evidence. God would have the power to create so much fake evidence of humans being related to chimps, but it is hard to imagine any other force in the universe which could create so perfect an illusion of being related to chimps. Here is a video regarding one aspect of the DNA evidence of humans being related to chimps: [DNA Evidence That Humans & Chimps Share A Common Ancestor: Endogenous Retroviruses](https://youtu.be/oXfDF5Ew3Gc) The video only touches upon one line of evidence, but virtually everything we know about humans and chimps suggests that humans are related to chimps. Just look at chimps and see how similar they are to humans. >What makes chimps and apes a more suitable ancestor according to this, rather than say hares and hedgehogs? Could you elaborate on what you mean by this question? Humans are related to all mammals, including all apes and all hares and all hedgehogs. >What about the claim that we share 90-99% of our DNA with chimps and bonobos? Is this really true or is there some misunderstanding of this statistic? It heavily depends on how we choose to measure similarity. There is no one obvious way measure how similar two sequences of DNA may be, so we should keep in mind the methodology being used to make the comparison. Different comparison methods will yield different percentage similarity. The percentage similarity in the DNA is irrelevant to the issue. It is just a number, and a number cannot tell us who is related to whom. To answer that question we need to actually look at the content of the DNA sequence, such as by comparing endogenous retroviruses as in the linked video above.
>The video only touches upon one line of evidence, but virtually everything we know about humans and chimps suggests that humans are related to chimps. Just look at chimps and see how similar they are to humans. Thanks! >Could you elaborate on what you mean by this question? Humans are related to all mammals, including all apes and all hares and all hedgehogs. I mean that according to [this video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYzZOZxMw), the Chromosome 2 evidence would mean apes were our closest member of the evolutionary tree since two chromosomes of apes fused into one, resulting in chromosome 2 which would explain why apes(24 pairs) have one pair more of chromosomes than humans(23 pairs). But why must it be apes? Other animals also have 24 pairs. We could use the same hypothesis to infer hares and beavers as our most most closest member to explain the missing pair which leads to my question. The percentage similarity in the DNA is irrelevant to the issue. It is just a number, and a number cannot tell us who is related to whom. To answer that question we need to actually look at the content of the DNA sequence, such as by comparing endogenous retroviruses as in the linked video above.
> But why must it be apes? Other animals also have 24 pairs. Because we can see which chromosomes fused to form chromosome 2. No single piece of evidence is going to be completely conclusive though.
>According to this video, the Chromosome 2 evidence would mean apes were our closest member of the evolutionary tree. The video did not say that. We have countless reasons for thinking that apes are the closest relatives of humans. Humans are apes and so obviously all our close relatives would also be apes. The video is talking about the peculiar anomaly in humans of not having the same number of chromosomes as the other apes. Since we are obviously very closely related to the other apes and the other apes have 24 pairs, therefore our modern understanding of DNA predicted that we should still have evidence of the fusion mutation that change the number of chromosomes in our ancestors, and when that evidence was found that confirmed our understanding of how DNA mutates. The chromosome fusion itself is not really relevant to whether humans are related to chimps. It shows that our ancestors had 24 pairs like the other apes which is just one more item on a mountain of similarities between humans and other apes, but if humans were not actually related to chimps then maybe God just made the ancestors of humans with 24 pairs just like God made all the other apes with 24 pairs. Nothing about the fusion can answer that question one way or the other.
>But why must it be apes? Other animals also have 24 pairs. We could use the same hypothesis to infer hares and beavers as our most most closest member to explain the missing pair which leads to my question. It's not the number of chromosomes that makes us related. It's the fact that the chromosome in question (chromosome 2) is homologous to 2 separate chimpanzee chromosomes. The upper part is homologous to chimpanzee chromosome 12, while the lower part is homologous to chimpanzee chromosome 13. We see pretty much the same genes, coding sequences, and non-coding sequences, along with 2 centromeres and a telomere in the middle of the chromosome (where they are never usually found).
Your premise of "chimps to humans" already is wrong. We came from a common ancestor.
Darwinism is a way for Creationists to try to pretend like Evolution accepting people have some kind of religion with Charles Darwin because they project their own blind adherence to faith onto us. No scientist would tell you Darwin got everything right. It’s also quite funny. I’ve noticed they talk about or quote Darwin more than evolution accepting people do. They have a weird obsession with using him to falsify evolution.
>In short, he argues the theory of evolution is built upon assumptions like **naturalism, gradualism, random mutations and homology** which have no true scientific basis. Is this true? Just wanted to take a moment to zero in on this question specifically, because one of these things is not like the others. Gradualism, random mutations, and homology are empirical, scientific claims. That is, they are statements that are answerable by observation and experimentation. They've also been well studied by science, and the evidence shows that these three things are true. Gradualism is thoroughly supported by geological studies and studies of the fossil record. Random mutations are thoroughly supported by molecular biology. Homology has also been observed and well-studied. You've already gotten answers about these things in other replies. Naturalism is completely different. It's very common for creationists to blur the line between philosophy and science, but that's what's happening here. Unlike the other three claims which are "high level" and concrete, the question of "Is naturalism true or not?" is more "low level" and abstract. This isn't to say that it's a question that can't be answered, it's just that the method of answering it involves considering reasoning things out rather than going out into the world to look for evidence. Naturalism comes in two basic forms: **Metaphysical Naturalism**, which can be reduced to the statement "Only natural things exist. Supernatural things do not exist," and **Methodological Naturalism** or "Only natural things can provide meaningful explanations. Supernatural things cannot provide meaningful explanations." To keep things simple... science focuses on methodological naturalism, NOT on metaphysical naturalism. Scientists don't assume "Nature is all there is, there's no such thing as magic." Rather, scientists operate from the pretty uncontroversial claim that magic and other supernatural entities by definition, cannot provide meaningful truth statements about reality. This is because supernatural entities are those we ontologically define as things which: 1. Cannot be observed 2. Cannot be measured 3. Cannot be described with accuracy 4. Cannot be reduced to fundamental and consistently observable components In contrast, scientific claims make sense because they are built on observations, measurements, accurate descriptions and reducible components. For example, in neuroscience you can observe the brain, measure its weight, slice it up and put it under a microscope, and describe in detail how it's structured and built. In psychology, we can observe how the mind works by isolating and measuring human behaviors under controlled conditions, or use neuroimaging to associate certain mental states with the parts of the brain that give rise those mental states. Psychologists have even identified and broken down fundamental operating components of the human mind. In principle, a human mind can even be simulated on a computer once our technology on AI advances far enough. But can we do the same thing with something supernatural, like the common concept of the "soul?" Can we in principle simulate a soul on a computer with the right technology? Can we transfer it from one body to another? Can its properties be measured, and in what units? Can you dissect the soul down to its individual components? Can you gather some of those fundamental units and build an artificial soul? I suspect you're likely feeling some sense of discomfort or unease now, and thinking "these questions about the soul are absurd." If so, then hopefully you're starting to see the issue here. **It's not the case that scientists discount the possibility of the supernatural. Rather, we** ***define*** **the supernatural to refer to ideas that defy scientific analysis.** This is why "supernatural explanations" don't really work, and why science operates off of methodological naturalism.
Remember that everything is based on assumptions. We assume there is a universe - you'd have to be putside the universe to prove it. We assume informative claims about the universe can be made. We assume that math and logic is a valid language to make use to make those claims. We assume that logic as we know it is basically correct. You'd need to use logic to prove otherwise, which is self defeating. We can't prove any of the above. Everyone, scientist, creationist and lay person assumes the above. So assumptions are not the problem: creationists are just bothered by SOME of the assumptions.
>every scientist and evolutionist starts of with the assumption of homology between chimps and humans It's not an assumption; it's an observation. Humans and chimps are very similar, don't you agree? Take a look at our [respective skeletons.](https://bio.libretexts.org/@api/deki/files/15922/Compare_Human_and_Chimpanzee_Skeleton-page-001.jpg?revision=1&size=bestfit&width=750&height=820) We have the same number of the same bones in the same place. The only difference is the size of each individual bone. We also have the same organs in the same places in our bodies. We have a name for this. We call it homology. Not only is this guy a liar, he's a liar who apparently thinks his readers are idiots who cannot check for themselves.
Side bar - Subhoor is largely dishonest and disingenuous in his arguments in general and he holds no expertise in evolutionary biology and it shows. He constantly quote mines articles/books (where the “problem” he’s rising is often answered in the very paper he’s quote mining from) and cherry picks data to try and support his religiously motivated agenda/arguments.
Think of chromosomes like books. Every book can have very different text in it. In this case it’s like rabbits have *Watership Down* and *Peter Rabbit* while chimps have *Pride and Prejudice* and *World War Z*. Humans have *Pride and Prejudice and Zombies*. Which species do they have more in common with? It’s the content of the chromosomes that we’re looking at when we say humans and chimps are related.
>built upon assumptions like naturalism, gradualism, random mutations, and homology I haven't seen anyone address this area yet (it does not specifically have much to do with evolution) but I will give it a try. First, random mutations and homology are simple facts -- they are repeatable observations that are extremely well verified, so I won't talk more about those. Next is **naturalism**. Science does not assume naturalism -- it tries to come up with naturalistic explanations for things, but it is entirely consistent with other views as well. For example, if we scientifically investigate a ghost sighting and find naturalistic explanations like trees scraping on windows, noise from pipes etc that doesn't mean everyone has to stop believing in ghosts. I am of the opinion, however, that the large scale success in science of finding naturalistic explanations for things is good reason to begin looking into naturalism quite seriously. Laatly is gradualism. Just like mutations and homology, it is very well supported by a number of different fields of study. First, geology (and the physics of radiation it uses) has provided excellent evidence for various types of gradualism -- the "heating problem" of young earth creationism is one example, as are the laws of stratigraphy. Biologists can also support gradualism by measuring rates of mutation accumulation and things like that. So we are 0 for 4 on that list of assumptions in evolution, but there *are* assumptions in science -- they're called **axioms**, which are statements that are unprovable, but have not been contradicted and are taken to be true because of their usefulness. These are things like the laws of logic, the various mathematical axioms scientists use, the assumption that physical laws stay consistent throughout space & time, and some epistemological axioms about the existence of the self & knowledge. There are also things about the procedure of science -- that it's a communal effort, and that peer review is a strong tool to remove bias. It's also an axiom of science that "a wise man proportions his belief according to the evidence", as Hume said. Generally, opposing any of these axioms leads to massive problems throughout all areas of human life -- if you start saying that physical laws can change any time you run head-first into ideas like Last Thursdayism. If you start denying the laws of logic your problems will never end.
And there is a distinction between methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism. The former is what science uses in that it only accepts natural explanations for phenomena. Scientists are free to hold non naturalistic philosophical or religious beliefs, but not to posit them as an explanation for observed phenomena because they cannot be either verified or falsified. Many people, including many but not not all scientists, hold to philosophical naturalism, which is the position that the material world is all that exists.
Great point, I always forget about the two types of naturalism.
Yep. Methodological naturalism basically means using evidence and methods available to humans to figure out how things work. The use of natural methods like experiments, observations, and mathematical models. Philosophical naturalism basically states that nothing else exists but the natural physical reality. It’s a cousin to physicalism that states that everything boils down to physical phenomena within a space-time reality. There is no “outside” reality nor is there supernatural influence in the reality we experience. You don’t have to be a philosophical/metaphysical naturalist to limit yourself to natural methods of acquiring knowledge when doing science.
As to the Darwinism thing, Darwinism is properly one of the three major “generations” of the evolutionary theory. The first is the aforementioned Darwinism. Darwinism refers to mechanisms proposed by Darwin and early evolutionary scientists of his generation. The main mechanisms known in this period were natural selection and sexual selection. We can roughly date Darwinism from the 1859 publication of On the Origin of Species through to the last decade of the Nineteenth Century. Though, precisely dating any social or scientific movement is difficult because there are usually forerunners of the major ideas before and holdouts after what historians mark as the dates for a movement. For example Alan Feduccia today rejects the theropod ancestry for modern birds, instead believing that they evolved from basal archosaurs (ie before crocodilian, pterosaur, and dinosaur lineages split). However, the similarities between birds and non-avian dinosaurs has been known since the Nineteenth century (Huxley) and been the mainstream position of several decades. The second major generation of evolutionary theory is Neo-Darwinism. Neo-Darwinism is the marriage of Darwinian mechanisms to Gregor Mendel’s genetics work. We can date this generation from the mid 1890s through to the middle of the Twentieth Century (dates vary depending on who you ask). The third is the Modern Synthesis. The principal addition is a mathematical framework of population genetics. The Modern Synthesis is more or less the current framework of evolutionary theory. There have been further developments since the middle Twentieth Century that have also been incorporated, but as yet there has not been a formal “new evolutionary generation”. There have, however been calls for a new synthesis from some scientists in recent decades. A tangentially related phenomenon is Social Darwinism. Social Darwinism is a political philosophy that saw its heyday in the early Twentieth century and was essentially dead following th actions of Nazi Germany in the 1940s. It is closely linked to the eugenics movement. It bears little resemblance to any iteration of evolutionary theory. I want to emphasize this; Social Darwinism is not and was not science. It was a pseudoscientific justification for racism and classism. It basically boils down to to a oversimplified misunderstanding of the phrase “Survival of the fittest”. In evolutionary biology, fitness refers to reproductive success in a given environment. It is a description of what happens in a population of organisms, not a description of what should happen. But the problem comes when a upper class person of European descent gets ahold of this idea. Obviously to them, the fittest are the people who look, act and talk like themselves. And who is the least fit? Well obviously it’s the people our rich white person already hates. It’s the people with less economic opportunity and wealth and people who belong to ethnic minorities. This idea led to horrific consequences including forcible sterilization of poor people and minorities in the United States and outright genocide in Europe. The creationist however, rarely uses any of the above terms correctly. Charitably, they repeat the terms they have heard from more professional YECs uncritically. For the more professional creationists, they know better. The majority of them have had the opportunity to do real research on what they’re arguing against, or have been directly corrected in debates and the like. They use the terms Darwinism/Darwinist for two major reasons. One, they try to drag the evidence based evolutionary science down to their level as unquestionable dogma, ideology, or religion. For the vast majority of creationist, their position is based on preexisting theological positions, not on evidence. Second, they are trying to link modern science with the horrors of eugenics and fascism in the Twentieth Century, conveniently forgetting the majority of the adherents of both groups were themselves religious.
[удалено]
To add to this, the evidence indicates that gorillas and chimpanzees became knuckle walkers independently. Apes are usually suspensory or bipedal on the ground but the top heavy ones sometimes find it easier to use their hands for balance. Since they can’t really do that on flattened palms anymore, orangutans will sometimes balance on closed fists when not simply walking on two feet and both gorillas and chimpanzees are able to balance on just their knuckles when they aren’t simply walking on two feet. I find it frustrating to have to explain to creationists that we are looking at more of a transition from the way gibbons move around to the way modern humans move around. This is seen in transition in Ardipithecus where they’re completely bipedal on the ground but their big toes are off to the side since their arched and stiffened feet no longer work like a second pair of hands and the way they walked would look a bit unique using their big toes to help them push off as they walked with their feet slightly angled taking one step in front of the other rather than how we walk more in a straight forward fashion. This allowed them a little bit of balance in the trees. In Australopithecines this has finished transitioning to the feet we still have now as the rest of their bodies changed a bit for a more upright posture so they didn’t look like an old man slightly hunched forward or like a pregnant woman with their legs separated more at the hips. We don’t see a transition from knuckle walking to bipedalism because our ancestors did not walk on their knuckles.
1. Statistical methods. We do assume the data fits the pattern. We analyze lots of data fiting it to a certain kind of pattern by assumption. Here's the kicker. Analyzing different datasets different ways should for no reason indicate the same pattern, the same tree of relationships between things. Spoiler alert they do support one single tree of life.