Fun! G. K. Chesterton on the difference between humans and apes

There is very little difference between chimpanzees and humans. We are probably no more distantly related than are the horse and the donkey. Since the horse and the donkey produce a viable, though sterile, hybrid, similar results might be anticipated between chimps and humans. A successful product would do more than any other result to establish the purely organic origin of Homo sapiens. I can't imagine a better way to still the ranks of those that deny evolution as well as those who, willy nilly, regard Homo sapiens with such high esteem.

In order to understand the "human animal," I find it necessary to postulate at least two Creators, one benevolent, the other malevolent.

What say others or would they rather not?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

I find it hard to accept that no one will react to my message presented here. That is characteristic of the way in which I have been received by both factions involved in this endless debate, a debate that should never have occurred. With my distinguished sources, not a religious fanatic or an atheist among us, we are not allowed to exist. It is an old story and little has changed in the century and a half since the publication of the Darwinian myth.

"The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and science lies in the concept of a personal God."
Albert Einstein

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

John, that was already attempted. I wish I had found a better source but this is the first report I could find.

http://www.environmentalgraffiti.com/sciencetech/stalins-deranged-vision-human-ape-super-race/1257

"The institute founded in 1927 was rumored to have come into existence, as part of Stalin’s disturbing plan to make legions of industrial workers that would be inhumane in strength, while mentally subdued. This would in theory, be achieved by inseminating female chimpanzees with human sperm from male donors, in order to create human-ape hybrids that could mindlessly build cities at terrifying speeds.

After decades of circulating through the Russian Media and being entangled by myth, Russian scientists working at the institute today, admit that such experiments did take place within the institute and that most of the radical testing can be narrowed down to one man named Dr. Ilya Ivanov.

Professor Barkaya, the present day scientific director of the Institute, speaking to the Independent explains that Dr. Ivanov “took sperm from human males and injected it into female chimpanzees, although nothing came of it.” Dr. Ivanov had come to the institute to attempt the creation of the human hybrids, after successfully creating new species of horse at the Pasteur institute in Paris. The various years of testing in the early days of the institute, would manifest itself into hundreds of bizarre experiments before the epic task of trying to tackle 20th centuries diseases.

Inspired by Darwinism and Eugenics, combined with the abject soviet rejection of religion, Stalin’s deranged vision of a mechanized utopia was put to work. The desire to realize a perverted dream of monstrous sub-humans, whose sole purpose was to extend the soviet empire, was in action. However, along with communist utopian visions, the plan failed: most of the monkey’s escaped or were murdered during the crossfire of the Georgian Abkhaz War. Today only 286 specimens live in the institute."

I am referring to serious attempts with in vitro hybridization. Injecting sperm into chimps is not likely to succeed. Josef Goebbels, Hitlers Propaganda Minister, claimed - "it has not yet been proven that non-aryans cannot hybridize wth apes" too.

I suggest using the same techniques that are used for infertile human couples, techniques that didn't even exist until recently. After in vitro fertilization, the embryo could be implanted in a chimp mother, although I am sure plenty of women, given the chance, would be willing to participate in such an experiment - especially if they get paid.

There is already on record a successful fertile hybrid resulting from a spontaneous cross between a male St Bernard and a female Dachshund. They named the bitch "rollmops" because her belly dragged on the ground during her pregnancy! My point is very simple. Men and women are animals, like dogs, with many varieties and as far as I can tell that is all that they are. Little is to be gained by continuing to deny that conclusion and much is to be gained by proving it to be true.

On one of my older blogs I suggested experimentally crossing Chihuahuas with St Bernards. I am convinced that such a cross would succeed in either direction. If the Chihuahua was the "bitch" and the St Bernard was the "son of a bitch," a single pup would probably be produced or maybe a Caesarean delivery would be required. The reverse would probably result in a large litter. Such an experiment would sure put Richard Dawkins in his place as he has actually been so weak minded as to claim dogs are evidence of evolution. William Provine made the same mistake. That is absurd. All dogs are wolves or coyotes as they produce fertile hybrids in all combinations. That has already been established.

Think what a sensation a Chihuahua / St Bernard hybrid would be. It would pale beside a chimp / human hybrid. And the money involved with a successful result staggers the imagination. Appearances on late night TV alone could reap millions for some successful entrepeneur. I say go for it! More important, we could potentially learn a great deal about ourselves and our place in the evolutionary sequence as the terminal product of a planned evolution.

To continue to deny that humans are animals is both bad science and bad theology.

No Darwinian would dream of doing such an experiment, even with dogs. Darwinians are afraid to test their silly hypothesis. They gave up testing it years ago. Now all they do is preach atheism. They could have tested Darwin's Finches in Darwin's own day. My God, the canary is a finch, among the easiest of all birds to domesticate. We now know that all of the Galapagos Finches are probably the same species anyhow from the field observations by the Grants.

The simple truth is that there is probably not a life form on the planet today that will ever become very different from what it is right now. Until that reality is accepted, the idiotic debate will continue, a debate which has contributed absolutely nothing to the understanding of our origins.

In short -

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

By the way Patrick, are you the same Patrick who is one of the chosen few "authors" at Uncommon Descent or would you rather not say? I like to know to whom I am responding whenever possible. Anonymity is one of my pet peeves. It is cowardly and should never have been allowed. I also disapprove of the sort of elitist potectionism that characterizes Uncommon Descent where the comments by the "authors" are presented against a pristine white background in contrast with the sort of gall bladder green that ordinary folks are permitted to enjoy. That is the ordinary folks that haven't already been eliminated by one of the "authors." Any venue that must employ such discriminatory tactics should never be called a forum. That is one of the reasons I have always enjoyed "Brainstorms" and now Overwhelming Evidence as well. Of course that could all change at the drop of the hat! Nothing would surprise me any more.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

Yes, I'm the same Patrick. And it's my real name, but I'd rather not dispense too many personal details.

Personally, I don't mind being called a coward. Due to ID I've made career decisions to avoid risks. I have too many friends who have been hurt. There's many more people who would be in danger if their coworkers knew of their association with ID proponents. If that's cowardly, then so be it. I'd rather be safe and be capable of providing the limited support I can provide. Just in the last couple months I know of several people who have been persecuted just because others "suspect" that they may have leanings toward ID. (And, no, I won't discuss details since that will probably make matters worse.)

BTW, I think the highlighting of admin's comments is a Wordpress feature. If there is a way to turn if off I haven't seen it yet in the admin section.

I could make a case for having been persecuted I suppose but I wouldn't dream of it and never have. The actions of the University of Vermont adminstration are a matter of record. They still deny that I ever taught there - for 33 years!

I love it so!

In any event I am glad you don't mind being called a coward. I still have no idea who you are just as I have no idea who several others are that hold forth in the wonderful word of cyberdumb. As one of the "authors" at Uncommon Descent you enjoy power like DaveScot, another alias, power denied to others. I find that kind of protectionist elitism unacceptable. It weakens any forum that uses such procedures. Fortunately, as near as I can discern, that is not a problem here at Overwhelming Evidence.

All that matters to me is that others know exactly who I am and what I believe. That is the way it is supposed to be, the way it was "prescribed" to be.

My blog is powered by Wordpress and my comments are presented in exactly the same way as those by my users. If such differences exist, they do so because of the policy of the blog owners. I have never deleted any comment once presented on my weblog. Can the same be said for Uncommon Descent?

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."

John,

Surely it would be very easy to prove your employment - if you had been there for 33 years there would be records of payments, tax-contributions and most importantly contracts stating the work that the University of Vermont engaged you to perform. This would be sufficient in any court of law to prove that you were an employee. If you have the normal documents of employment, what would anybody gain by attempting to deny what can be so trivially proved?

Regarding "Uncommon Descent", I agree with you - the site has a reputation for encouraging a particularly narrow agenda and has a habit of suppressing even quite mild controversies amongst true believers of ID.

I've not posted on UD - I doubt that any of my comments would last long, for the simple reason that while I am a proponent of Intelligent Design, I feel that the ID movement and it's most prominent backers often fail to live up to the standards of free-inquiry that they so publicly aspire to. I doubt that anybody on UD would welcome me pointing this fact out.

Patrick,

Now you are telling me you don't post at Uncommon Descent? Who are you kidding? You earlier told me that you were the same Patrick that was one of the "authors" there. I must be losing my mind to even bother responding to this nonsense. Or do you mean that you will never be an author there again? If so, does that mean that you have had a belly full of its methods and are now no longer an "author" there?

In my opinion the major problem with Uncommon Descent is David Springer. He conducts what can only be described as a "reign of terror." Why the titular heads of that forum tolerate this unprincipled tyrant is beyond me. He is a blight on the face of rational discourse. Little more than a shool yard bully, all he can do when challenged is ban his critics with such arrogant farewells as "_______is no longer with us " or "you're outta here homo." His trademark is "I love being right" and his IQ is "north of 150." He's a beauty!

It is hard to believe isn't it?

I think it is grand that the University of Vermont denies that I taught there for 33 years. Perhaps they could explain why I still enjoy their medical benefits, library privileges and TIAA/Cref annuity program. I don't have to prove a damn thing. It is all as clear as glass.

"Pigs is pigs."
anonymous

It is hard to believe isn't it?

A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

John - I think you have me and Patrick confused. I have never posted on UD and do not intend to. I broadly agree with the statements you made, however I do occasionally read the site when directed there from another site.

UD seems to be dominated by "political" wedger-ID folk and has little if any real scientific content. It's chief preoccupation seems to be back-slapping and mutual admiration which leaves little bandwidth available for critical discussion of Intelligent Design.

Woops!

You are absolutely right Bob Mort. Sorry about that.

What you call mutual admiration is more, in my opinion, a fear of taking exception to the "authors," who have the power to stifle all opposition by summary banishment or deletion of any critics who might respond unfavorably on their threads. David Springer has undoubtedly banished more users than any other individual in the history of forum communication. He "loves being right" and don't you ever forget it! As he once explained to me after, in a fit of pique, he had removed all my papers from the side board -

"The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away."

It is hard to believe isn't it?

That sort of intellectual tyranny has no place in any venue claiming to be a forum.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

I'm not personally familiar with the administrators of UD - I would however caution any serious researcher or ID journalist to avoid posting there. UD's goals are clearly more political than scientific. It has the atmosphere of a political party rally where rather than a scientific conference because any substantial disagreement from the orthodoxy is punished (as you say) by excommunication.

I have never been banned from that site, however I have no doubt that I would be if I began posting - it's simply not worth engaging in that community.

Bob

Uncommon Descent would be much improved if it would rid itself of Springer. The man certainly should not be an "author." He is a bully who has parasitized Uncommon Descent and made it his own private forum. He is an arrogant, intolerant, unprincipled sociopath, the world's expert on every subject whose only goal is to dominate every venue where he speaks, whatever the cost. He rules through fear with the approval of Dembski. His posture on global warming and climate change is an intellectual disgrace. I recommend that others visit my forum and ISCID's "brainstorms" forum where I have confronted this coward and exposed him. That I will continue to do wherever I am allowed.

john.a.davison.free.fr/

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

While I have probably been banned from more forums than anyone else in the history of the internet, it was refreshing to receive a positive plug at -

http://www.conservapedia.com/John_A_Davison

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

John, I'm not sure that Conservapedia has ever been a standard bearer for good science - indeed much of what the so-called conservatives present as conservatism is really radicalism of the most extreme and twisted kind!

Bob Mort, whoever that is.

You probably realize by now that one of my pet peeves is anonymity. It is inexcusable by any standard. Comments from an anonymous source have no validity whatever. Denyse O'Leary is not an alias is it?

I don't solicit support from anyone. Someone emailed me about the Conservapedia comments so I cited them. That is all. At least I am being recognized which is more than I can say about most venues. Do you regard the comments presented at Conservapedia to be "extreme and twisted" and do you regard my publications as poor science? So it would seem.

Actually, as far as I can tell, Conservapedia is a cut above Wikipedia which isn't saying much for either venue. Both are highly politicized, Wikipedia to the liberal atheist left and Conservapedia, as the name suggests, to the political right.

I have stated my position in my most recent essay which I presented here. It is I who is the radical because I have rejected both the Christian Fundamentalists and the Atheist Darwinians. Neither faction has contributed a scintilla to the great mystery of organic evolution.

Instead of dumping on Conservapedia, which I find revealing, why don't you react to the substance of that essay? That is why I have presented it here and elsewhere. So far it is being ignored like most of what I have presented both in professional journals and the ephemeral world of cyberdumb.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison

I noticed that one of my comments disappeared, so let me try to restate my personal beliefs in a way that is less likely to annoy the good people of this blog - in an anonymous forum it's very easy for mis-placed words to become a nuisance, so to Denyse and the other moderators, I apologize if you have found my tone out of kilter with the project. I'm used to being an outsider, but that should never be an excuse to cause offense or nuisance.

Firstly, it was never my intent to "dump" on conservapedia - I think it's a good and interesting project that may one day become a serious educational or reference resource. At the moment, however almost every criticism of Wikipedia could also be true of Conservapedia.

Regarding my comments about "radicalism" - my point is that we are all radicals here. Some of us are more visible, others (like me) lurk behind the curtain of anonymity.

You might also substitute the word "revolutionary" for 'radical' - in this particular context it means much the same thing. We are seeking to overturn a status-quo which has persisted for almost 200 years.

Like I said, I know my view is "fringe", so please feel free to disagree with me. It's only an opinion!

Bob

But you DID dump on Conservapedia and in the process managed to insult me and my science. Words have meaning and you should use them more carefully.

"A past evolution is undeniable, a present evolution undemonstrable."
John A. Davison