• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Debate prep

AronRa

Administrator
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
I'm supposed to debate this guy on Tuesday.

The question is, "What is the most recent common ancestor of humans & monkeys?"
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
You gave two names to me “Homo” and “Canus Lupus” if i lookup latest common ancestor i get “Boreoeutheria” but i have no idea if its correct.
 
arg-fallbackName="We are Borg"/>
Just watched the video and on the end he talks about abiogenesis and evolution and at that point you know he is more creationists then anything else. The position he holds is almost the same as Hovind.
 
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
Just watched the video and on the end he talks about abiogenesis and evolution and at that point you know he is more creationists then anything else. The position he holds is almost the same as Hovind.
I have noticed that his arguments are typically the usual creationist clap trap.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

Not sure when this talk was given - YT indicates it was uploaded in 2016 - though it may be earlier as he cites scientists' comments from 2010-2012.

According to Eric Hovind, he's a member of Mensa - there's also a short video by Jackson about how he was "saved". [1]

Since the debate is apparently about "the most recent common ancestor of humans and monkeys" - effectively, where monkeys split off from other animals (if I understand you correctly) - there shouldn't be a problem with talking about "missing links" to humans from the other apes, as this debate is about a split well before that.

His comments about the anthropomorphising of fossils - ears, hairlines, facial features, eyelids (whether they expose the corneas - as in humans - or don't - as in other apes) - don't really hold water. After all, other apes - and even monkeys - have hairlines, and - as we're evolved from these - it should not be surprising that we also have hairlines, etc, similar to them.

The only point of contention is that the images depicting the fossils show them with human-like eyes (exposed corneas). Unless there's some definitive way to determine whether the eyelids exposed the corneas or not, he has a point.

However, he seems to think that these portraits are done by the scientists, rather than the artists who actually draw them - with a certain amount of artistic licence.

Towards the end of the talk (52:40 minutes onward - the audio is out of sync), where he discusses the "missing/negative stuff" that "contradicts evolution", is somewhat confused, and confusing. As you mentioned elsewhere, he seems to be confusing spontaneous generation (as in mice coming out of piles of grain giving the impression that grain gives rise to mice) with abiogenesis (56:38 onward). Not to mention abiogenesis and evolution.

Yes, cells gave rise to pterodactyls - the keyword being "EVENTUALLY".

His reference to the Darwin Coalition's "extended evolutionary synthesis" is - I believe - a attempt to incorporate epigenetics into the theory of evolution, although I haven't read anything on it, and I don't know if I'm right on this.

Most puzzlingly, he appears to believe that natural selection is not the only explanation for "survival of the fittest". (1:01:59 onward)

All confusing abiogenesis and evolution: whatever created life, evolution would occur. What?
Who said natural selection is evidence for evolution? I've never heard that one.

Anyway, if you need anything more specific, I'm sure we can find it for you.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
Greetings,

Not sure when this talk was given - YT indicates it was uploaded in 2016 - though it may be earlier as he cites scientists' comments from 2010-2012.

According to Eric Hovind, he's a member of Mensa - there's also a short video by Jackson about how he was "saved". [1]

Since the debate is apparently about "the most recent common ancestor of humans and monkeys" - effectively, where monkeys split off from other animals (if I understand you correctly) - there shouldn't be a problem with talking about "missing links" to humans from the other apes, as this debate is about a split well before that.

His comments about the anthropomorphising of fossils - ears, hairlines, facial features, eyelids (whether they expose the corneas - as in humans - or don't - as in other apes) - don't really hold water. After all, other apes - and even monkeys - have hairlines, and - as we're evolved from these - it should not be surprising that we also have hairlines, etc, similar to them.

The only point of contention is that the images depicting the fossils show them with human-like eyes (exposed corneas). Unless there's some definitive way to determine whether the eyelids exposed the corneas or not, he has a point.

However, he seems to think that these portraits are done by the scientists, rather than the artists who actually draw them - with a certain amount of artistic licence.

Towards the end of the talk (52:40 minutes onward - the audio is out of sync), where he discusses the "missing/negative stuff" that "contradicts evolution", is somewhat confused, and confusing. As you mentioned elsewhere, he seems to be confusing spontaneous generation (as in mice coming out of piles of grain giving the impression that grain gives rise to mice) with abiogenesis (56:38 onward). Not to mention abiogenesis and evolution.

Yes, cells gave rise to pterodactyls - the keyword being "EVENTUALLY".

His reference to the Darwin Coalition's "extended evolutionary synthesis" is - I believe - a attempt to incorporate epigenetics into the theory of evolution, although I haven't read anything on it, and I don't know if I'm right on this.

Most puzzlingly, he appears to believe that natural selection is not the only explanation for "survival of the fittest". (1:01:59 onward)

All confusing abiogenesis and evolution: whatever created life, evolution would occur. What?
Who said natural selection is evidence for evolution? I've never heard that one.

Anyway, if you need anything more specific, I'm sure we can find it for you.

Kindest regards,

James
Thank you kindly.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

You're welcome.

I just had another quick look at the 1:02 bit - he said "natural selection would occur if Larry the Leopard made us".

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
I'm supposed to debate this guy on Tuesday.

The question is, "What is the most recent common ancestor of humans & monkeys?"

This guy is no Kent Hovind. Though he is not well known, he has given lectures before at a church I am familiar with in Colorado, where normally only all the top young earth creation scientists speak at. Jonathan Sarfati, Jason Lyle and think even Werner Gitt and so on.

It could be a good debate. Good luck.

 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

The debate is up:




Although it appears to be 3 hours long, it isn't.

Firstly, I still have no idea in what Dr. Jackson has a doctorate, although he apparently taught science in college, and now does so in high school.

Secondly, it's somewhat of a repeat of John Heintz - without the name calling.

It never got past the first question regarding (Asiatic) wolves and domestic dogs.

@AronRa, I think you might want to change how you approach this.

There are four possibilities with regards to the relationship between (Asiatic) wolves and domestic dogs:
a) Domestic dogs are descended from (Asiatic) wolves;
b) (Asiatic) wolves are descended from domestic dogs;
c) (Asiatic) wolves and domestic dogs are both descended from a common ancestor that is neither a wolf or a dog - a "wolf-dog";
d) (Asiatic) wolves and domestic dogs are two completely unrelated species/"kinds"/"creations".

Dr. Jackson appeared to favour c).

[It should be noted that the "wolf-dog" in option c) is not to be confused with the modern "wolfdog", which is the result of Russians interbreeding wolves and dogs resulting in a breed with a superior nose though more aggressive temperament.]

So, it comes down to either a "Y" shape, for option c), where the fork is where the common ancestor of both - the "wolf-dog" - occurs, or a runic "F", for option a), with the top horizontal bar missing, where the perpendicular represents the (Asiatic) wolf from early times (the bottom) to modern times (the top) and the mid-horizontal bar (angled upward) represents domestic dogs from around 15,000 years ago to today.

He seemed unable to accept that - what he called - "ancient" wolves (presumably his "wolf-dog") were the same as modern wolves, despite the fact that they are genetically identical.

Regardless, you never got him to accept dogs were descended from wolves, and so the debate effectively ended there, as with John.

There also seems to be confusion as to why all these related species are called "canidae" or "dogs": they're called that because they look like domestic dogs, which is why they're called African Painted Dogs (aka Cape Hunting Dogs), Dholes (aka Indian Hunting Dogs), Racoon Dogs, etc, etc.

The rest was not really relevant.

The Q&A didn't come up with much other than that point where he gave "evidence" for creationism when he spoke about the National Geographic project that showed there were 4 gene pools in humans - which he then seemed to imply that these just happened to coincide with Noah's sons and their three wives.

However, he then seemed to backtrack by saying that he wasn't equating the pools with the biblical characters.

So, what was the point of mentioning it?

Not to mention the fact that there's a time difference between the gene pools that doesn't fit with the Ark story: humans interbred with Denisovans some 100 generations after interbreeding with Neanderthals, for example.

His comment that both "evolutionism" and creationism are paradigms through which the evidence is viewed, and that neither are falsifiable because they both interpret the data through their paradigms, was not really valid.

As you noted, evolution can be falsified, creationism can't be - and he never came up with a example of how it could be falsified.

All rather frustrating.

I think, as you acknowledged, a written debate - perhaps here? - would be much better.

Kindest regards,

James
 
Last edited:
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
I thought it was entertaining. I think my fellow Creationists would do better to just admit they have no model of created kinds and lineage. I got a kick out of Aron's reaction when Jackson suggested that we do. We dont but so what? I think often debates make people act like they always have an answer for anything.

I haven't been able to find the study Aron and Jackson both referred to about us coming from 4 gene pools. They also both kinda talked about wolfs or dogs originating from a specific number of gene pools(if I got that right..). I am wondering if the same kind of test was done on the dogs and the humans because Jackson seemed to support the 4 human gene pool idea but not the dog one. If they are both based on the same or similar tests then that would probably be something Aron could point out in a future debate to his advantage.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

The study was shut down and public access was terminated unless you'd taken part in it, from what I could find.

However, it appeared to refer to haplogroups, rather than gene pools - there are 28 of those.

The four gene pools to which they referred are H. Sapiens, Neanderthals, Denisovans, and H. Erectus.

1628792639959.png

The fact is, we are a mongrel species - we're the result of the interbreeding of a number of related hominids - not just after but before we left Africa.

1628793235824.png

Also, it wasn't wolves/dogs that have four gene pools but chimpanzees.

You're right about it being the same sort of test - genetic/DNA testing. Again, this is definitive - no-one can argue against this evidence other than to ignore it.

Jackson's claim that it all comes down to paradigms is where the problem lies.

The fact is, evolution is supported by empiric evidence from most, if not all, of the Earth sciences. Creationism has nothing other than "just-so" stories - "God did it". Jackson doesn't see this - quite possibly because he's blinded by his own paradigm despite claiming that "evolutionists" are the ones who're blinded.

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
I haven't been able to find the study Aron and Jackson both referred to about us coming from 4 gene pools.
I found it. It was apparently posted by AnswersInGenesis rather than mainstream science journals, for reasons that will become obvious when you read the blog post rebuttal by evograd.

 
arg-fallbackName="Led Zeppelin"/>
I found it. It was apparently posted by AnswersInGenesis rather than mainstream science journals, for reasons that will become obvious when you read the blog post rebuttal by evograd.


As a layman, I have to say that is a pretty excellent video. It was easy for me to understand and addressed all the right issues. There are brilliant minds also on this forum who have kindly and patiently explained things to me even though we disagree about origins. I think Jackson should have plainly stated that if the creator God both him and I believe in, does in fact exist, then it would could be extremely difficult for us to determine the original state everything was created in and what the created kinds were.

I don't know why Jackson just could not admit that. Is he afraid of his own position? Please try harder to look more nice and friendly in your debates, when you can. Also I was wondering the significance of the writing on your beer mug at the beginning of the debate, If you have time.

If you ever change you mind about things, don't ever feel like you can not tell God about it. I am no better than you are.
 
arg-fallbackName="Dragan Glas"/>
Greetings,

I found it. It was apparently posted by AnswersInGenesis rather than mainstream science journals, for reasons that will become obvious when you read the blog post rebuttal by evograd.


Only three mitochondrial lines?

What about that of Noah's wife through their three son's?

And, although the Bible doesn't give their names, other sources do. [1]

Kindest regards,

James
 
arg-fallbackName="AronRa"/>
What about that of Noah's wife through their three son's?
Noah and his wife are supposed to represent the root in this case, from which the three variants diverged.

And, although the Bible doesn't give their names, other sources do. [1]
Funny thing about that. Ken Ham's Ark Encounter just made up names for them. One of them is called Ariel, named after Disney's Little Mermaid.
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
In the debate, Jackson brought up the myth of Matthew Maury being the Pathfinder of the Sea. That one has been debunked for years.

 
Back
Top