Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I have noticed that his arguments are typically the usual creationist clap trap.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.
Thank you kindly.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
I'm supposed to debate this guy on Tuesday.
The question is, "What is the most recent common ancestor of humans & monkeys?"
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.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.
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.
Yeah, that doesn't really fit with the topic of "what is the most recent common ancestor of humans and monkeys", does it?I find it funny that the names read "Aron Ra (Atheism)" and "Dr. Jackson (Creationism)".
Noah and his wife are supposed to represent the root in this case, from which the three variants diverged.What about that of Noah's wife through their three son's?
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.And, although the Bible doesn't give their names, other sources do. [1]