You see the truth is most people regardless of their worldview have never learned to think objectively. The Milgram studies come to mind, and the evidence proves the majority would harm another person if persuaded to do so by an authoritative figure, an expert in a lab coat. First step to having a free mind is to choose not to be delusional. Can you do that?
People are indoctrinated early on in life.
They are told what to think, but most never learn how to think freely and
objectively. Once their minds have been programmed from political views in
school, or social media, other propaganda, and the influence of likeminded
friends who themselves have been brainwashed, it is quite difficult for such a
person to have their mind set free. I am literally sharing with you a truth
that is the opposite of manipulation and social engineering. First, people must
accept their reasoning is faulty and people are easily influenced and
manipulated. Many examples in history prove this to be true, most popular
example being the propaganda influence for many Germans in Nazi Germany. A more
recent example the growing number of people who believe the earth is flat. Now,
to begin having a free mind recognize authoritative figures/experts are not
always right, and often they may have a political agenda (money talks). Test
all truth claims in life by asking yourself is this belief/claim illogical and
unproven? You can tell by remembering the logical fallacies of appeal to
emotions, appeal to ignorance, and appeal to popularity. These logical
fallacies were used by the very intelligent and manipulative lawyers of OJ
Simpson during his first trial. Thousands and perhaps millions were fooled
because the OJ Lawyers incited everyone's anger towards the racist cop. The
lawyers brought all our focus towards racism instead of the actual evidence
against the murderer. Ironically, hate blinded so many from seeing all the
evidence right in front of everyone's faces proving OJ Simpson was guilty of
murder... You wonder how so many people have grown more ignorant in recent
years? I am trying to help you understand how and why. People are easily
influenced or intimidated by propaganda and authoritative/celebrity figures,
and people must know the majority are often wrong, as history has proven time
and time again. I want you to know you can have more potential for intellectual
growth than most people with their fancy degrees and popular status.
Appeal to
popularity and appeal to ignorance are two logical fallacies the majority fall
for. For example, if someone says, “Scientists say this is true so it must be.”
Or “The experts claim” (fill in the blank.) These are not logical reasons to
believe a claim is true. That is lazy thinking. It is good advice to do the
research for one’s self instead of just looking for the opinion of “experts”
who support my presupposed position, as the common folk often do. Below is an
example of some interesting truths to be discovered in science upon one taking
the initiative to use their free mind when doing a proper unbiased
investigation.
Now DNA is a
rather recent discovery in science, and there is still much to be learned about
it. Now if one presupposes DNA can provide insight to how closely related
different organisms are, there will be some humorous discoveries on the way.
One may get the feeling “perhaps there is something I am missing, because it
feels like I may be heading a little off course.”
Everyone has
probably heard by now that humans are most closely related to the great apes,
as we share 98.8 % of the same DNA. Well this is not true. When analyzing the
data for both the human and chimpanzee genome geneticist Richard Buggs
calculated the similarity between these two species could be less than 70%.
Separate studies have shown upon analyzing the base pairs of DNA for the human
and chimpanzee there is a difference of 360 million.
Regardless of
the DNA similarities between different species one can argue similarity in
design does not prove one creature evolved from another. The case grows more confusing
because DNA similarities does not always mean similar design. There has been
research done at the National Human Genome Research Institute showing
genetically humans are 90% related to a cat, and 60 to 65% related to a chicken
and a banana. Perhaps more research needs to be done, because all this
information leaves one feeling like the study of DNA similarities in species is
not helpful for defending evolution. Regarding an exact percentage difference
between human and chimpanzee geneticist Svante Paabo states, “I don’t think
there’s any way to calculate a number… In the end, it’s a political and social
and cultural thing about how we see our differences.” If the similarity between
a chimp and human was a remaining obstacle for the seeking mind, one should
just accept DNA similarities is not evidence in support of atheistic evolution,
and certainly not evidence against the human mind being designed by God. Do not
choose to be intellectually dishonest. Or do you not have a free mind to think
for yourself?
Who else in
the animal kingdom do you think we are so closely related to? Perhaps the
Wolf/Dog? For they are pretty smart. If we are presupposing similar DNA
determines what animals we are most closely related to, you might be surprised
to know we share 90% of our DNA with mice. Huh, that’s weird. Someone please
tell me where the missing link containing at least 5% more shared DNA is? My
guess is we’d be looking for some Mickey Mouse apelike hybrid creature. Perhaps
the more aggressive Mickey Mouse apelike hybrids began breeding with the less
aggressive ones in their species and within a couple generations they were
giving birth to the smart little mice we have today. Going in the other
direction therefore chimpanzees have the big ears of the missing Mickey Mouse
hybrid relative, but they no longer had use for the mouse tails and the big noses.
Well, my theory would be wrong. Scientists say mice and humans descended from a
common ancestor about the size of a small rat from 75 to 125 million years
ago... boring!
Seriously
though the genetic blueprints of Mice and Men are shockingly similar. "About
99 percent of genes in humans have counterparts in the mouse," said Eric
Lander, Director of the Whitehead Institute Center for Genomic Research in
Cambridge, Massachusetts. "Eighty percent have identical, one-to-one
counterparts." So according to DNA evidence we are more closely related to
mice than our best friends, the dogs… But don’t worry, we share 84% of our DNA
with dogs.
Now let us
try to better understand how these DNA based relational discoveries are true.
One sees why because of what has been discovered when studying the genome, a
set of instructions in every living organism. Working with the processing
machine of the ribosome the genome is like a computer program consisting of
instructions for making hundreds of proteins and it regulates the making of
cells. The reason there is so much recognized shared information in mammals is
because of the resemblances in the formation of the inner organs, and other
biological similarities… Oh, and this should explain why genetically humans are
about 60% related to bananas… Okay, maybe not.
Sources to
check out
Michael Behe, Darwin Devolves, Broadway,
NY: HarperOne, 2019.
Johanson, Donald C. and Maitland Edey (1981), Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind
(New York: Simon & Schuster).
Johanson, Donald C. (1996), “Face-to-Face with
Lucy’s Family,” National Geographic, 189[3]:96-117, March.
Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, (Broadway, NY: HerperOne,
2009), 119-220.
Werner Heisenberg, Physics and Philosophy, (New York: NY, Penguin
Books, 2000), 45.
Jefferey P. Tomkins, “Comprehensive Analysis of Chimpanzee and Human
Chromosomes Reveals Average DNA Similarity of 70%,” (Answers Research Journal
6, 2013), 64.
J. Tomkins, “Separate Studies Converge on Human-Chimp DNA
Dissimilarity,” Acts & Facts 47 (11) (2018), 9.
J. Cohen, “EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY: Relative Differences: The Myth of
1%,” (Science 316, no. 5833, June 7, 2007), 1836.
Tom Wolfe, The Kingdom of Speech, (New York,
NY: Little, Brown and Company, 2016), 3-4.
No comments:
Post a Comment