genetic tress and human evolution

Ron at Ron at
Thu Aug 5 11:31:13 CDT 2004

----- Original Message -----
From: John Grehan
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 9:24 AM
Subject: genetic tress and human evolution

The other tree is dismissed as "phylogenetically meaningless because
"accepting it is equivalent to accepting a radical revision of primate
phylogenetics, one which flies in the face of all other data".


So I've been thinking about posting the following and have decided, what the
heck.   From the creationist standpoint there is no "kinship".  Shared genes
are simply attributed to taxa having been constructed of the same building
materials.  What unique character might be found as evidence of a unique
origin for modern man?   All humans have a reflex action which no other
animal on the planet has. When humans are nude and are happened upon by
other people, they instinctively cover their genitalia.   Whether a 9 year
old just out of the shower in New York - and grandma comes into the
bathroom; or an adult male nude in his hut in the most primitive tribe - and
his friend barges in.   The reaction is instinctively the same - cover the
genita area.   It has always been this way in recorded history.   One has to
learn to be comfortable with public nudity.

The bible states that the first thing God said to man was "who told you you
were naked?"  Obviously, at some point in human "evolution" a unique
awareness of sexuality came into being.  An awareness that is hard wired
into all of us, and in no other species.  It is not just an awareness of
nakedness or sexuality, but some inner compulsion to want to "hide it."   It
is not a protection reflex - it is a physiological one.

Perhaps the phylogenetic catch 22 is that the reason there are holes or
problems with the various scenarios is because there is merely shared
primate organic material (Chimp, Orang, Gorilla. etc.)  but no kinship.   IF
one simply dismisses any possibility of a "creator/creation", THEN one does
not have to consider that possibility - no matter how remote one may
personally feel it is.   I don't think it is off to say that both those who
have either an evolution only or creation only bias have a lot to loose if
it is ever demonstrated they (either side) are in error - even if by
degrees.   The possibility of creation would dramatically affect
systematics.  What taxa were created and which evolved?  Evolution / near
kinship or creation / similar workmanship?

Though I am basically a creationist, the purpose of this post is not to
promote creationism.  I just think that truly pragmatic intellectual
investigations are open to all possibilities.  Humans are starkly unique
from the other animals to such a degree one should ask why we alone veered
so far off and so far ahead (or away) of everything else.

Ron Gatrelle

PS   I'm also not really looking for any response either, as I said, what
the heck.

More information about the Taxacom mailing list