JTF.ORG Forum
General Category => General Discussion => Topic started by: Americanhero1 on January 26, 2009, 01:18:07 PM
-
WASHINGTON — Two centuries after Charles Darwin's birth on Feb. 12, 1809 , people still argue passionately about his theory of evolution.
Was Darwin right? Should schoolchildren be exposed to contrary views in science class? These two controversies continue to rage, partly because both sides are evenly matched.
Most scientists and courts that have ruled on the matter say that overwhelming evidence backs Darwin's explanation of the origin and evolution of species, including humans, by natural selection.
Many people, especially religious and social conservatives, strongly disagree.
Among them are ``creationists,'' who take literally the Genesis story that God created the world and mankind in six days no more than 10,000 years ago. Others support ``intelligent design,'' the idea that life is too complex to have arisen without a supernatural ``designer," presumably God.
Public opinion surveys consistently have shown that Americans are deeply divided over evolution. The most recent Gallup poll on the issue, in June 2007 , found that 49 percent of those surveyed said they believed in evolution and 48 percent said they didn't. Those percentages have stayed almost even for at least 25 years.
Gallup found a political angle to the split. Two-thirds of Republicans rejected Darwin's theory, while majorities of Democrats and political independents accepted it.
A Harris poll published last December found that more people believe in a devil, hell and angels than in evolution.
The controversy is most acute in the public schools, where conservatives want evolution banished from science classes or at least described as ``a theory, not a fact.''
Darwin's supporters counter that to scientists a theory isn't just a guess or a hypothesis but a widely accepted explanation of natural events supported by the best available evidence.
At a hearing last week before Texas' State Board of Education , scientists and social conservatives exchanged fiery arguments over a rule that requires science textbooks to cover ``the strengths and weaknesses'' of evolutionary theory.
Darwin critics control seven of the 15 seats on the board and have the support of Republican Gov. Rick Perry . The chairman of the board, Don McLeroy , a dentist, is a creationist who believes that the Earth is only thousands of years old, not billions as most scientists think. The board will decide the issue in March.
Louisiana's State Board of Elementary and Secondary Education adopted guidelines Jan. 15 that allow teachers to use ``supplemental materials'' that aren't in regular textbooks about ``controversial'' subjects such as evolution and global warming.
Louisiana's new rules ``ensure the state's teachers their right to teach the scientific evidence both for and against Darwinian evolution,'' according to the Discovery Institute , the headquarters of the intelligent design movement in Seattle .
``We fully expect to see the Discovery Institute's book, `Explore Evolution,' popping up in school districts across the state,'' Barbara Forrest , a Darwin supporter in Hammond, La. , told Science magazine .
The Louisiana school board also eliminated language that had banned the teaching of creationism or intelligent design, saying that the ban is unnecessary.
``The creationists got what they wanted,'' said Patsye Peebles , a retired Louisiana science teacher.
The opposition to the Discovery Institute is led by the National Center for Science Education , a pro-Darwin research center based in Oakland, Calif.
The center contends that intelligent design is a subtle way to introduce religion into science education, which the courts consistently have declared unconstitutional.
``The phrase `strengths and weaknesses' has been spread nationally as a slogan to bring creationism in through the back door,'' center executive director Eugenie Scott told the Texas school board.
Similar proposals are pending or expected in Alabama , Arkansas , Florida , Georgia , Michigan , Missouri , Oklahoma and South Carolina , according to Glenn Branch, the deputy director of the National Center for Science Education .
``In a typical year, NCSE will be monitoring about 80 episodes of creationist activity in the United States and abroad,'' Branch said.
``This issue isn't going away,'' John West , a senior fellow at the Discovery Institute , wrote in an e-mail to his allies last May. ``Although Darwinists are doing their best to shut down and intimidate anyone who raises questions about neo-Darwinism, we still have free speech, and they can't prevent people from hearing about the debate in the public arena, no matter how hard they try.''
The theory of evolution itself is evolving. Since Darwin's day, researchers have acquired powerful tools that revealed DNA's role in passing inheritance from generation to generation, something Darwin knew nothing about.
Around the middle of the 20th century, this led to the ``Modern Synthesis,'' a major updating of evolutionary theory to accommodate new information. Many biologists are suggesting still another revision, which some call ``Modern Synthesis 2.0.''
For example, Darwin described evolution as the growth of a tree, the ``Tree of Life. '' The tree began with a single, original organism at the root, with myriad species branching off from the trunk.
Biologists increasingly say that evolution resembles a web or a bush rather than a tree. Microbes constantly swap DNA. Hybrid plants and animals cross species lines, blurring sharp lines between species.
``We understand evolution pretty well,'' said W. Ford Doolittle , a Darwin supporter and biologist at Dalhousie University in Halifax, Nova Scotia . ``It's just that it's more complex than Darwin imagined.''
http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/20090126/sc_mcclatchy/3153454
-
I respect Darwin's theory and I'm amazed how research today continue to prove and disprove his studies. I think it's best that we just respect his theory of evolution and just move forward to new discoveries. However, let's also put into mind that through him, we are given the knowledge about the possibility of this theory.
EDIT: Utterly irrelevant links removed.
-
I respect Darwin's theory and I'm amazed how research today continue to prove and disprove his studies. I think it's best that we just respect his theory of evolution and just move forward to new discoveries. However, let's also put into mind that through him, we are given the knowledge about the possibility of this theory.
What do the links to dental hayward have to do with this thread?
EDIT: Links removed.
-
There is no reason why science and religon should not be able to co exist. In my view, the process of Evolution only shows the true grandur of the nautral world, while Religion shows me the true nature of the spirit.
-
There is no reason why science and religon should not be able to co exist. In my view, the process of Evolution only shows the true grandur of the nautral world, while Religion shows me the true nature of the spirit.
Hashem is above nature, the spirit is above nature, the Jewish people are above nature...
-
Wait. Hold on here. We all know Gd is a flying spagetti monster and humans are nothing more than the retarded offspring of a fish squirrel making it with a frog monkey!
-
There is no controversy about this within the scientific community. Absolutely none. The only controversy about it is in the minds of the non-scientific public.
-
Evolution song:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GS3i80CsbR4
DID CHARLIE MAKE A MONKEY OUT OF YOU?
©Tom Walk, Russel Alan Pratt
INTRO by Professor Poopfossil: (performed by Samuel Fischer)
Good morning Class! My name is professor Poopfossil and today we will be studying the principles of E-VIL-U-TION
Once I was a tadpole long and thin
Then I was a froggie with my tail tucked in
Then I was a baboon in a tropical tree
And Now Im your professor with a PHD
And the Big question is: Did Charlie Make A Monkey Out Of You?
LYRICS:
Well they say about 60 billion years ago
A little fish changed to a tadpole
Sprouted legs and grew some hands
Then he crawled out on the land
Changed from a reptile, to a monkey then a man!
So today I took my Bible to my school
But they say God's word is now against the rules
They say my Grandpa's a Gorilla,
My Dad's a chimpanzee
And my little baby brother's a baboon!
(Chorus) Did Charlie make a monkey out of you? Wackadoo! Wackadoo! Do you think you should be living in a zoo? Wackadoo! Wackadoo!
Don't you know that it's a lie
When it comes your turn to die
You'll find out your not a monkey but a fool!
Well I've heard some far fetched stories in my day
But the one I heard this morning takes the cake!
Well, I'm looking in the mirror
Just a checking out my rear
But I can't find a tail growing any place! Chorus
So I stood up to the teacher and told the class
"I can't swallow all this baloney about our past!
Evolution really stinks,
There just too many missing links
To believe all this is just to much to ask!" (chorus)
You'll find out you're not a monkey but a fool
Don't let Charlie make a monkey out of you!
-
I respect Darwin's theory and I'm amazed how research today continue to prove and disprove his studies. I think it's best that we just respect his theory of evolution and just move forward to new discoveries. However, let's also put into mind that through him, we are given the knowledge about the possibility of this theory.
EDIT: Utterly irrelevant links removed.
Darwin did not have a theory of evolution. He had a theory of natural selection.
-
There is no controversy about this within the scientific community. Absolutely none. The only controversy about it is in the minds of the non-scientific public.
Dead right. On the other hand, religious belief does not have to justify itself, but then it shouldn't try to argue it's point by scientific reasoning.
-
There is no controversy about this within the scientific community. Absolutely none. The only controversy about it is in the minds of the non-scientific public.
As if the 'scientific community' has never been wrong before?
-
Perhaps only the atheists are using the derivatives of Darwin's theory to create an edge over the religions.
Otherwise how the muslamics are not evolving in to men. :laugh:
-
A fish-like thing appeared among the annelids one day.
It hadn't any parapods nor setae to display.
It hadn't any eyes nor jaws, nor ventral nervous cord,
But it had a lot of gill slits and it had a notochord.
Chorus:
It's a long way from Amphioxus. It's a long way to us.
It's a long way from Amphioxus to the meanest human cuss.
Well, it's goodbye to fins and gill slits, and it's welcome lungs and hair!
It's a long, long way from Amphioxus, but we all came from there.
It wasn't much to look at and it scarce knew how to swim,
And Nereis was very sure it hadn't come from him.
The mollusks wouldn't own it and the arthropods got sore,
So the poor thing had to burrow in the sand along the shore.
He burrowed in the sand before a crab could nip his tail,
And he said "Gill slits and myotomes are all to no avail.
I've grown some metapleural folds and sport an oral hood,
But all these fine new characters don't do me any good.
(chorus)
It sulked awhile down in the sand without a bit of pep,
Then he stiffened up his notochord and said, "I'll beat 'em yet!
Let 'em laugh and show their ignorance. I don't mind their jeers. *
Just wait until they see me in a hundred million years. *
My notochord shall turn into a chain of vertebrae
And as fins my metapleural folds will agitate the sea.
My tiny dorsal nervous cord will be a mighty brain
And the vertebrates shall dominate the animal domain.
(chorus)
* note -- the two lines marked by asterisks are not the original words, which are:
I've got more possibilities within my slender frame
Than all these proud invertebrates that treat me with such shame.
-
There is no controversy about this within the scientific community. Absolutely none. The only controversy about it is in the minds of the non-scientific public.
As if the 'scientific community' has never been wrong before?
Any theory that would replace evolution would have to account for why evolution matches up with the evidence so well.
-
There is no controversy about this within the scientific community. Absolutely none. The only controversy about it is in the minds of the non-scientific public.
As if the 'scientific community' has never been wrong before?
Yes, both the religous and the scientific communities, if one can separate them, have been wrong on many issues. Scientists have often made the mistake of not recognising the limits of what they can understand. As someone once said of space, there is much out there that we don't understand, and much that we can't understand. There all all manner of areas which the human brain simply isn't good enough to comprehend.
As a commercial geneticist, evolution is not an issue to me. If people don't want to believe it, then so be it. In the practical scientific world, they'd soon find out how far they get without it. However what I find amazing is that the US public, while wringing it's hands over the evolution so-called issue, doesn't seem to care less about the GMO issue, which correctly is considered of extreme importance in Europe. With GMO's, to quote Prince Charles, we really have scientists interfering in the plan of the Creator. Cross-species gene transplants have already given us AIDS and mad cow disease. But perhaps Monsanto aren't as good at thought control in Europe as they are in the US. And it's costing them serious money.
Enjoy your trip to the supermarket!
-
I stand corrected. We all are the retarded offspring of the fishfrog and retarded squirrelmonkey ape
-
Any theory that would replace evolution would have to account for why evolution matches up with the evidence so well.
Ever read the works of Ken Ham?
-
Any theory that would replace evolution would have to account for why evolution matches up with the evidence so well.
Ever read the works of Ken Ham?
My favorite of his is the dead cat fossilizing audio clip :laugh: Poor kids who have to listen to that.
He's that Australian young earth creationist guy, right? Yeah I've heard most of what he has to say. Serb Avenger I'm sorry but there's absolutely no truth to young earth creationism. If you're going to reject evolution you're better off going with someone like Hugh Ross who at least tries not to contradict too much science.
-
Serb Avenger I'm sorry but there's absolutely no truth to young earth creationism. If you're going to reject evolution you're better off going with someone like Hugh Ross who at least tries not to contradict too much science.
Rubystars, normally I like your posts and posting style but that's incredibly arrogant and ignorant. If you consistently applied your reasoning on the "evidence" for evolution to other topics of controversy, than you'd have to also be convinced that Obama is not a Muslim and that the Fakestinians have a historical basis for their so-called "state", because that is what the Establishment is unanimously arguing and providing tons and tons of "evidence" for.
-
Serb Avenger I'm sorry but there's absolutely no truth to young earth creationism. If you're going to reject evolution you're better off going with someone like Hugh Ross who at least tries not to contradict too much science.
Rubystars, normally I like your posts and posting style but that's incredibly arrogant and ignorant. If you consistently applied your reasoning on the "evidence" for evolution to other topics of controversy, than you'd have to also be convinced that Obama is not a Muslim and that the Fakestinians have a historical basis for their so-called "state", because that is what the Establishment is unanimously arguing and providing tons and tons of "evidence" for.
The evidence, at least from a historical standpoint, is against there ever having been a "Palestinian" state. The complete lack of artifacts from "Palestinian" culture is one argument to be made.
Obama being a Muslim or not would be harder to prove with evidence, but we can make a good circumstantial case, along with direct quotations from him which indicate that his sympathies are with Islam.
-
Ken Ham's Dead Cat presentation to KIDS:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I hold up my dead cat and say to the children "Imagine you go home today and find out your pet cat just died. What are you going to do?" *MEOW*
Adam told G-d that he wanted life without Him, free to do as he pleased. But you see, G-d who is righteous, had to judge Adam's rebellion by judging his sin with death. As a result, the world, which was once called very good, became corrupt with disease, death, suffering, and evil.
??? disease... disaster, suffering.
??? disease... disaster, suffering.
You know they're all around us.
I hold up my dead cat. *MEOW*
What are you going to do? *MEOW*
You take your dead cat outside and place it on the grass and then put up a sign stating, "Dead cat fossilizing, do not touch." If you record your observations, that would be something like this:
◦Day 1: Dead cat on grass.
◦Day 7: Smelly dead cat on grass.
◦Day 200: Part of cat missing
◦Day 300: All of cat missing.
You see, it didn't turn into a fossil; it just decayed. *MEOW*
You see, G-d said he made all the land animals on day 6 of creation, and he did not say that it did not include the dinosaurs. Now follow me here. They don't want to submit to the G-d of the bible.
*MEOW-YOW-YOW*
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Serb Avenger if anyone did this to a kid that was mine, I would go and beat him with a baseball bat. For those who don't know, yes, he uses a toy cat as his "dead cat", but imagine the upset the kids must feel when he pops off with "imagine you go home and find out your PET CAT JUST DIED"
-
I fail to see the relevance of any of this as an argument for the evolution of species.
-
I fail to see the relevance of any of this as an argument for the evolution of species.
http://www.talkorigins.org
-
I get it. You are trying to make fun of the dead-cat story as an argument against the fossil record as we know it. I don't see how that bolsters the claim for evolution. You tell me, how many fossils are being created today, as we speak? Even when entire carcasses are artificially buried, how many fossils result from them? Are human bones that were buried as recently as 100 years ago preserved well?
-
I get it. You are trying to make fun of the dead-cat story as an argument against the fossil record as we know it. I don't see how that bolsters the claim for evolution. You tell me, how many fossils are being created today, as we speak? Even when entire carcasses are artificially buried, how many fossils result from them? Are human bones that were buried as recently as 100 years ago preserved well?
Usually fossils form over long periods of time after being buried. The way Ken Ham describes it isn't even close to what actually happens. A lot of fossils came out of the La Brea Tar Pits because the tar was able to bury the bones of the animals so they didn't decompose. Ancient sea bottoms or ancient lake beds contain fossils that settled in the silt at the bottom and were preserved. Other fossils occurred after landslides or other disasters buried them. Some "fossils" are actually whole animals trapped in amber such as ancient insects.
There probably are fossils forming today but it would be hard to know exactly where they are, because they're not where we can see them, since they're... buried!
Back to the dead cat thing. Replace "dead cat" with another family member and you see how sinister that really is. "Imagine you came home and found your mommy had died" "Dead mommy fossilizing, do not touch".
Sorry I missed part of your question so I'm editing to add more.
Some human bones do stay preserved for a long time. The conditions have to be right for a fossil to form.
-
Usually fossils form over long periods of time after being buried.
Speculation, and hardly ever borne out in an observable manner because decomposing organisms usually take care of all remnants of biostructures eventually, including bones.
The way Ken Ham describes it isn't even close to what actually happens.
Again speculation. Neither you nor I have actually watched a fossilization take place.
A lot of fossils came out of the La Brea Tar Pits because the tar was able to bury the bones of the animals so they didn't decompose.
That is a special circumstance!
Ancient sea bottoms or ancient lake beds contain fossils that settled in the silt at the bottom and were preserved.
Objection 1: Carbon isotope 14 deterioration is not constant: it is influenced by pressure, exposure to the atmosphere, temperature, etc., so we can't say with authority what for sure is "ancient" and what isn't. Objection 2: The "ancient sea bottom" argument is a perfect demonstration of what is actually Noahic flood geology.
Other fossils occurred after landslides or other disasters buried them. Some "fossils" are actually whole animals trapped in amber such as ancient insects.
Again this is perfect evidence of the Noahic flood. Less-epic burials, such as those caused by bad floods, tsunamis, etc. today, generally still result in eventual consumption by decomposing biota.
There probably are fossils forming today but it would be hard to know exactly where they are, because they're not where we can see them, since they're... buried!
If so it would have to be on an extremely limited scale as few environments, including those deep underground, are sterile. What the fossil record suggests is that an enormous amount of life became extinct extremely quickly under conditions of extreme weight, pressure, and heat, and in the absence of normal saprophytic organisms. Literally the earth's crust would have to have been turned inside out for this to take place. If the earth is billions of years old this would have to take place gradually enough so that the dead animals would have stood zero chance against the processes of decay.
Back to the dead cat thing. Replace "dead cat" with another family member and you see how sinister that really is. "Imagine you came home and found your mommy had died" "Dead mommy fossilizing, do not touch".
You don't like the dead cat argument because it looks hokey and you find it heartless for little kids. That is not a scientific objection.
-
Serb Avenger, I'll be glad to get into the nitty gritty details with you if you really want to, but I don't think you're going to change your mind regardless of what evidence I show you. I've probably seen most of the arguments that you got off of the YEC Web sites. For whatever reason YECs decide that their version is the truth and they go out in search of evidence to try to prop that up. Real science doesn't assume to know the answers beforehand and seeks to draw conclusions based on all the evidence that's gathered.
Flood geology just doesn't work for a number of reasons. One of them is that it doesn't account for different fossils in geological strata, and the different characteristics of different rock layers.
Another is that mixing the salt and fresh water in one big global flood would kill all the fresh water fish and wildlife and the raging seas would put a lot of marine life in danger as well.
All that extra water would have had to come from somewhere and go somewhere.
-
There is no controversy about this within the scientific community. Absolutely none. The only controversy about it is in the minds of the non-scientific public.
Rubystars, my step-father is a very respected theoretical physicist (one of his books is widely used as a textbook). He thinks that the Darwinian theory of evolution is total crap. Random mutations and probability theory are incompatibe! Coordinated mutations would be an impossibility in a materialist universe. You should talk to him. He makes fun of a one-legged fish. :laugh: Many, many scientists agree with him, especially biologists. He thinks that any thinking person would just find too many holes in the Darwinian theory of evolution with its random mutations. By the way, he doesn't believe in God, but he does think that the Universe is somehow permeated by "information" and that our genes are tiny computers that calculate various design possibilities for new life forms. In other words, he believes in some kind of "intellegence" and teleology of life. I suppose it's a form of a belief in an intelligent design, it's just that he "suspends" the question of a designer. He won't speculate about something that he can't know´. But that there is intelligence in the universe, he doesn't doubt. He says it's there for everyone with a brain to see (especially for a scientist!).
-
There is no controversy about this within the scientific community. Absolutely none. The only controversy about it is in the minds of the non-scientific public.
Rubystars, my step-father is a very respected theoretical physicist (one of his books is widely used as a textbook). He thinks that the Darwinian theory of evolution is total crap. Random mutations and probability theory are incompatibe! Coordinated mutations would be an impossibility in a materialist universe. You should talk to him. He makes fun of a one-legged fish. :laugh: Many, many scientists agree with him, especially biologists. He thinks that any thinking person would just find too many holes in the Darwinian theory of evolution with its random mutations. By the way, he doesn't believe in G-d, but he does think that the Universe is somehow permeated by "information" and that our genes are tiny computers that calculate various design possibilities for new life forms. In other words, he believes in some kind of "intellegence" and teleology of life. I suppose it's a form of a belief in an intelligent design, it's just that he "suspends" the question of a designer. He won't speculate about something that he can't know´. But that there is intelligence in the universe, he doesn't doubt. He says it's there for everyone with a brain to see (especially for a scientist!).
I think there must be a big misunderstanding that he has somewhere because evolution is the opposite of random. Natural selection is by its very nature a selective process even if it does so passively in the sense of not being aware of doing the selecting. I've also never heard of a one-legged fish and I don't think there are any fossils of one-legged fish. There are transitional fish-amphibians though. Unlike your step-father, I do believe in God, so I think that God helped to direct evolution toward the path that He wanted.
-
I think there must be a big misunderstanding that he has somewhere because evolution is the opposite of random. Natural selection is by its very nature a selective process even if it does so passively in the sense of not being aware of doing the selecting. I've also never heard of a one-legged fish and I don't think there are any fossils of one-legged fish. There are transitional fish-amphibians though. Unlike your step-father, I do believe in G-d, so I think that G-d helped to direct evolution toward the path that He wanted.
Before there is natural selection, there should be a random mutation. That's the Darwinian idea. Because he didn't believe in a purpose-driven world. On top of it, one mutation is not enough. Some features are changed through coordinated mutations. For example, for an eye or a long neck in a giraffe to evolve, a lot of things need to happen at the same time. In real life they have only so far observed mutations that are harmful to survival, genetic mistakes. An accidentally favorable mutation must be a rare thing indeed. Many random mutations at a time (to change or evolve a feature) are a statistical impossibility. It contradicts theory of probability. If a person is suspected of killing someone because he has a motive, an opportunity, he told everybody that he's going to do it, a bloody knife and clothes are found in his house, the fibers from his clothes are everywhere in the victim's house, his bloody fingerprints and all over the crime scene, his hair and DNA was found on the victim - did he kill the victim? Any sane jury will say yes. But imagine him arguing that the fingerprints are not actually fingerprints, but random, naturally created patterns of dust? Who will believe him? This is what evolutionists are arguing. That millions of useful mutations happened all by themselves over short spans of time. That just stretches credulity too thin. If something looks designed, it is because it was designed.
-
Before there is natural selection, there should be a random mutation. That's the Darwinian idea. Because he didn't believe in a purpose-driven world. On top of it, one mutation is not enough. Some features are changed through coordinated mutations. For example, for an eye or a long neck in a giraffe to evolve, a lot of things need to happen at the same time.
First of all evolution happens in a population, not in individuals. So in the entire population, the probability of a favorable mutation arising is a lot more than in one individual. Furthermore, what might be favorable in one environment might be detrimental in another. If you plop a fennec fox down in the arctic, it could be seen as having several harmful mutations. If you plop an arctic fox down in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, the arctic fox would be seen as having several harmful mutations. In the right environment, however, those very same traits are beneficial. Populations respond to changes in the environment as some survive better than others. A giraffe might have had a mutation that made its neck just a few inches longer than others around it. It wouldn't be a huge thing, but it might help it reach more leaves. Over time the neck got very long and other adaptations went along with it because those who had them survived better than those who didn't.
There was a great article on the evolution of the eye that I'll get for you if I can find it. It basically starts with a light sensitive nerve though.
In real life they have only so far observed mutations that are harmful to survival, genetic mistakes. An accidentally favorable mutation must be a rare thing indeed. Many random mutations at a time (to change or evolve a feature) are a statistical impossibility. It contradicts theory of probability. If a person is suspected of killing someone because he has a motive, an opportunity, he told everybody that he's going to do it, a bloody knife and clothes are found in his house, the fibers from his clothes are everywhere in the victim's house, his bloody fingerprints and all over the crime scene, his hair and DNA was found on the victim - did he kill the victim? Any sane jury will say yes. But imagine him arguing that the fingerprints are not actually fingerprints, but random, naturally created patterns of dust? Who will believe him? This is what evolutionists are arguing. That millions of useful mutations happened all by themselves over short spans of time. That just stretches credulity too thin. If something looks designed, it is because it was designed.
I think your arguments are similar to CB200:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200.html
-
Answer to: "The eye is too complex to have evolved."
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html
Answer to: "New structures or organs would not develop incrementally because they would not function until fully developed. For example, what use is half an eye? "
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB921.html
Answer to: "Why are beneficial traits not evolved more often? If wings were beneficial for protobirds, for example, why have they not evolved on gazelles and apes?"
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB928.html
-
Serb Avenger, I'll be glad to get into the nitty gritty details with you if you really want to, but I don't think you're going to change your mind regardless of what evidence I show you. I've probably seen most of the arguments that you got off of the YEC Web sites. For whatever reason YECs decide that their version is the truth and they go out in search of evidence to try to prop that up. Real science doesn't assume to know the answers beforehand and seeks to draw conclusions based on all the evidence that's gathered.
Flood geology just doesn't work for a number of reasons. One of them is that it doesn't account for different fossils in geological strata, and the different characteristics of different rock layers.
Another is that mixing the salt and fresh water in one big global flood would kill all the fresh water fish and wildlife and the raging seas would put a lot of marine life in danger as well.
All that extra water would have had to come from somewhere and go somewhere.
Ruby, I could say the same thing of you. You have concluded on your own that your own theory is inherently more rational, and have discarded the other side's opinions.
The main reason why Darwinian evolution rose to the forefront is that the world in general was taken in by the Rationalist movement in the 1800s, including the religious world (as seen by the growth of the liberal church, starting in Germany and moving globally). The intelligentsia of the whole western world concluded that theistic-based lenses were not based on empirical evidence and that a naturalistic philosophy made more sense. Prior to this, YEC was a very accepted explanation of origins by scientists and they believed all the evidence supported this view.
If the fundamental paradigm shift from literal theism to agnosticism/skepticism was never made, Darwinism would be dead in the water. The only question NOW is why otherwise religious conservatives like you would hold to it.
-
A billion black Africans can't be wrong in denying that they are related to Apes.
-
First of all evolution happens in a population, not in individuals. So in the entire population, the probability of a favorable mutation arising is a lot more than in one individual. Furthermore, what might be favorable in one environment might be detrimental in another. If you plop a fennec fox down in the arctic, it could be seen as having several harmful mutations. If you plop an arctic fox down in the deserts of Saudi Arabia, the arctic fox would be seen as having several harmful mutations. In the right environment, however, those very same traits are beneficial. Populations respond to changes in the environment as some survive better than others. A giraffe might have had a mutation that made its neck just a few inches longer than others around it. It wouldn't be a huge thing, but it might help it reach more leaves. Over time the neck got very long and other adaptations went along with it because those who had them survived better than those who didn't.
Very wishful thinking to say the least. 98.5% of mutations are either harmful (like Tay-Sach's, Huntington's, BRCA 1 and 2, or thanatophoric dysplasia) or provide no benefit whatsoever and are meaningless for survival. Most of what evolutionists called "mutations" are actually natural selection--a culling of the gene pool so that certain traits stand out, similar to when breeds of dog, cat, or horse are made. The organisms subject to this, such as the different species of island finches that have "evolved" different beaks to fit the local nut-bearing trees the best, have actually lost genetic diversity, not gained it.
Even those few mutations that do appear useful at first often are a double-edged sword. A hemocytic mutation that protects against malaria is pretty common in Africa. Too bad it also codes for deadly sickle-cell anemia. It is therefore unlikely that the anti-malarial mutation seen in Africa is about to take the whole world by storm and be the catalyst in a new breed of super-healthy humans.
There was a great article on the evolution of the eye that I'll get for you if I can find it. It basically starts with a light sensitive nerve though.
Yes, they are called ocelli. Organisms such as caterpillars and spiders have these very sensitive, simple "eyes", which can tell light from dark, and that is about it. They don't need anything more advanced than that, but why haven't their eyes progressed throughout hundreds of millions of years? Why are there no mutations in caterpillars or spiders producing even simple compound eyes (like flies have)?
That millions of useful mutations happened all by themselves over short spans of time. That just stretches credulity too thin. If something looks designed, it is because it was designed.
You have a very good point, Masha. Modern evolutionary theory believes in punctuated equilibrium (that there has not been a steady process of change over billions of years, but rather broad phases of relative stasis, and sudden periods of great mutation in a brief amount of time). This is ridiculous and biologically incompatible with sustained life. We have a term for when millions of mutations happen in organisms very suddenly. Most people understand it very well. It's called cancer.
-
I wonder where the talking horses and the flying pigs are? If evolution is the fact, there should be much more diversity than we see today. I expected to see people with 12-20 fingers and two heads {because two heads are better than one}. Why only 2 eyes, why not eyes on the back of the head... Wouldn't this make a creature more safe because he could see any preditors coming from behind? Where are all these mutations which should have created all kinds of monsters?
-
I wonder where the talking horses and the flying pigs are? If evolution is the fact, there should be much more diversity than we see today. I expected to see people with 12-20 fingers and two heads {because two heads are better than one}. Why only 2 eyes, why not eyes on the back of the head... Wouldn't this make a creature more safe because he could see any preditors coming from behind? Where are all these mutations which should have created all kinds of monsters?
I don't see how most of those traits would have been beneficial. One thing to keep in mind is that if it doesn't help reproductive success, a trait isn't likely to spread through a population. Another thing to keep in mind is that evolution builds by making modifications to what's already there. Therefore pigs wouldn't really be able to have wings in addition to their four limbs because the raw materials for them aren't there.
-
Ruby, I could say the same thing of you. You have concluded on your own that your own theory is inherently more rational, and have discarded the other side's opinions.
Science isn't based on opinions. I grew up thinking of evolution as "evilution" and that it was a lie. Only the strength of the evidence convinced me.
The main reason why Darwinian evolution rose to the forefront is that the world in general was taken in by the Rationalist movement in the 1800s, including the religious world (as seen by the growth of the liberal church, starting in Germany and moving globally). The intelligentsia of the whole western world concluded that theistic-based lenses were not based on empirical evidence and that a naturalistic philosophy made more sense. Prior to this, YEC was a very accepted explanation of origins by scientists and they believed all the evidence supported this view.
So let me ask you a question. Are you against methodological naturalism in science? The accepted view among the public used to be that evil spirits caused disease. Uneducated people around the world still hold this view.
Without the scientific method, people would still think this way. "Spirits did it" or "God did it" just is not something that has a place in studying the natural world. Miracles do occcur, but they have no place as an explanation in a scientific context.
If the fundamental paradigm shift from literal theism to agnosticism/skepticism was never made, Darwinism would be dead in the water. The only question NOW is why otherwise religious conservatives like you would hold to it.
I "hold to it" because it has practical scientific applications and the weight of the evidence. It also makes testable predictions.
-
A billion black Africans can't be wrong in denying that they are related to Apes.
:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
-
I wonder where the talking horses and the flying pigs are? If evolution is the fact, there should be much more diversity than we see today. I expected to see people with 12-20 fingers and two heads {because two heads are better than one}. Why only 2 eyes, why not eyes on the back of the head... Wouldn't this make a creature more safe because he could see any preditors coming from behind? Where are all these mutations which should have created all kinds of monsters?
Well one thing for sure we do have talking apes..... I guess the horses and pigs were more careful with what they mingled with. Some people are born with an extra finger or toe and even a tail from time to time :o Possibly there is something in the genetic code that will only let things get out of proportion to a certain extent.
-
I wonder where the talking horses and the flying pigs are? If evolution is the fact, there should be much more diversity than we see today. I expected to see people with 12-20 fingers and two heads {because two heads are better than one}. Why only 2 eyes, why not eyes on the back of the head... Wouldn't this make a creature more safe because he could see any preditors coming from behind? Where are all these mutations which should have created all kinds of monsters?
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.
-
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.
It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.
Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit than cost though in our case. Other animals survive better without such a costly organ.
-
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.
It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.
Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals survive better without such a costly organ.
And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?
-
And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?
Giraffes are related to a type of antelope called an Okapi. The longer neck probably helped the original antelope-like creature to reach higher leaves than before on bushes and short trees even if it wasn't as long as a giraffe's neck today.
This article also indicates that because of their camel-like gait, that okapis and giraffes also use their necks to balance:
http://animals.jrank.org/pages/3317/Okapi-Giraffe-Giraffidae-PHYSICAL-CHARACTERISTICS.html
-
We fought this evolution battle during early days of the forum...
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php/topic,1064.0.html
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php/topic,1075.0.html
http://jtf.org/forum_english/index.php/topic,2070.0.html
-
Looks like those threads were fun CZ
-
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.
It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.
Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals survive better without such a costly organ.
And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?
Very good observation. And the transitional mutations from short neck to long neck which were not beneficial and became extinct must have fossilized over millions of years, which begs the question: where are all of the fossils of each of the Millions of successive mutations all over the globe in the transitional creatures which were not beneficial and became extinct? Has there been one fossil discovered anywhere in the world which clearly shows the intermediate transitional mutation which was not beneficial and died out? If there is, I would like to see a photo of it.
-
By its very nature the fossil record is incomplete. Not every creature to ever live, not even every species, was preserved. We do have enough transitionals between major groups to draw conclusions from.
There are different species of giraffe family animals in the fossil record though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climacoceras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeotragus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samotherium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honanotherium
"Honanotherium schlosseri was a giraffid ancestral to the modern giraffe (genus Giraffa) from the late Miocene of Hunan Province, China. It would have resembled a modern giraffe, but, somewhat shorter"
More ancient giraffe species could be found eventually, but again we're not going to find every species that ever lived.
-
There are creatures and fishes in deep underwater caves who had no use for their eyes and thus they have lost their eyes permanently and genetically being a redundant mechanism in the long run.
Evolution has to be a genetically tactical capability provided by the Hashem like many and all other capabilities provided by him.
Evolution on a very small scale may be comparable to the changing colors of the Chameleon for survival of the self in alignment with the environment and against the enemies. Obviously this does not provides the immortality to the Chameleon and it also gets fossilized a day along with its near relatives, and some of those fossils may never be found.
-
Science isn't based on opinions.
Assuming-facts-in-dispute is circular logic.
I grew up thinking of evolution as "evilution" and that it was a lie. Only the strength of the evidence convinced me.
Experiential evidence/testimony is never to be taken as valid by itself. Thousands of brainwashed Westerners have converted to Islam based on "the evidence" that the Koran is an inspired book.
So let me ask you a question. Are you against methodological naturalism in science?
Again, this is circular reasoning. Evolution is the only face of methodological naturalism because you say it is.
The accepted view among the public used to be that evil spirits caused disease. Uneducated people around the world still hold this view.
a: This is a classic strawman. By characterizing the opposing side of being of the ilk that does not believe in pathogens, which we can observe empirically, you can dismiss them as ignorant without actually refuting their POV.
b: Yes, I believe that some disease is caused by evil spirits, in certain circumstances, and/or even by G-d himself, at times.
Without the scientific method, people would still think this way. "Spirits did it" or "G-d did it" just is not something that has a place in studying the natural world.
More of this mischaracterizing of evolution opponents. Show me one creation biologist who has an animistic worldview.
Miracles do occcur, but they have no place as an explanation in a scientific context.
Evolution, the way that you believe that it took place, would truly have to be the ultimate "miracle".
I "hold to it" because it has practical scientific applications and the weight of the evidence. It also makes testable predictions.
"Testable predictions"? You mean because organisms with an astronomical reproductive rate like bacteria and insects show gene culling (natural selection) within an observable timeframe when unnaturally tested by chemical poisons? What "testable predictions" in Darwinian evolutionism have been borne out in macrobiotic organisms?
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climacoceras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeotragus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samotherium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honanotherium
The Bible tells us that this is a fallen world due to the curse of sin and that is a proposition that can be tested by fact. Most animals went extinct soon after the Noahic flood due to drastic habitat modification or irrecoverable population depletion. In addition, G-d gives us the free will to hunt his creation into oblivion.
As for the identity of the extinct animals you mention--most of the time, without viable DNA, we have little more than the speculation of a few paleontologists to taxonomically assign something. How do we know for sure that the creatures you mention were truly of the giraffe family? And assuming that they were, what is your proof that they were members of a progressive biological succession? In this world today we have small Asian and large African elephants. Are Asian elephants automatically the ancestor of Africans because they are smaller?
-
By its very nature the fossil record is incomplete. Not every creature to ever live, not even every species, was preserved. We do have enough transitionals between major groups to draw conclusions from.
There are different species of giraffe family animals in the fossil record though.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climacoceras
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palaeotragus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samotherium
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honanotherium
"Honanotherium schlosseri was a giraffid ancestral to the modern giraffe (genus Giraffa) from the late Miocene of Hunan Province, China. It would have resembled a modern giraffe, but, somewhat shorter"
More ancient giraffe species could be found eventually, but again we're not going to find every species that ever lived.
Shalom sister RubyStars,
Yes different species of giraffe may have existed in the past just as different species of horse exist today [eg draught horse, thoroughbred, quarter horse, etc] but that is not the same thing as a horse or a giraffe being descended from a fish.
There is a world of difference between adaptation to an environment for a particular type of creature [eg a giraffe progressively adapting and growing a longer neck over many successive generations in order to reach food in tall trees] to that same giraffe being evolved from a fish. Is it not a fact that evolutionists claim that one species of animal "evolved" into another completely different species?
For evey single species of animal to have ever lived on the earth - literally numbering in the Billions - that according to the evolution hyothesis supposedly "evolved" from one animal species into another [eg a fish to an amphibian to reptile then to a bird, etc.] there would have to be at least ONE fossil somewhere in the world preserved showing the supposed transitional evolutionary change from one species of animal into another totally different species of animal. That translates to Billions upon Billions of evolutionary transitional phases over Hundreds of Millions of years for every single type of creature that ever existed - including insects.
I understand that not every species of animal to have ever lived is going to be preserved as a fossil, but it is highly illogical to use that argument as a foundation to explain away the complete lack of fossil evidence for the Billions upon Billions of transitional creatures that would have to have existed between one species evolving into another totally different species.
It is stretching logic and credibility to breaking point to suggest that not one of these transitional creatures has been preserved as a fossil or that we just haven't been looking hard enough in order to be able to find it.
-
The Bible tells us that this is a fallen world due to the curse of sin and that is a proposition that can be tested by fact. Most animals went extinct soon after the Noahic flood due to drastic habitat modification or irrecoverable population depletion. In addition, G-d gives us the free will to hunt his creation into oblivion.
It is true that most of the creatures that were ever alive are now extinct.I don't think most of them had to do with humans making them go extinct though. I think many of them just naturally ran their course or left descendants that were significantly different from them over the long run. For example birds are very similar in the skeleton to theropod dinosaurs but you don't see actual theropods running around anymore.
As for the identity of the extinct animals you mention--most of the time, without viable DNA, we have little more than the speculation of a few paleontologists to taxonomically assign something.
Most of the ancient species we know about, we'll never be able to get DNA from because that kind of thing degrades over time fairly quickly. It's only recent species that we can hope to ever get DNA from. I think some wooly mammoth DNA and Neanderthal DNA was recovered but those creatures haven't been extinct for too terribly long although it's still very difficult to get DNA from things that have been dead for that long.The conditions have to be just right.
How do we know for sure that the creatures you mention were truly of the giraffe family?
Honatherium was basically a shorter version of the modern giraffe, just like what people were saying didn't exist a few posts back. We know that creatures are in the giraffe family if their skeletons have a lot of characters in common with Okapi or Giraffes. I'm not a paleontologist so I can't give you every detail but I understand in general. Okapi have a lot of characters in common with giraffes and are basically considered short-necked members of the giraffe group.
Biologists who study skeletons can easily tell the difference between a deer and antelope skeleton, for example, based on certain characters present or absent.
And assuming that they were, what is your proof that they were members of a progressive biological succession?
Modern giraffes are only found in certain time periods and these other species are found only in their time periods. The way evolution works is that they might not be direct ancestors but they might be closely related to the direct ancestors. Or they could be the direct ancestors.
It's always possible to find a fossil from that same time period that has more in common with modern giraffes than that one does.
In this world today we have small Asian and large African elephants. Are Asian elephants automatically the ancestor of Africans because they are smaller?
No the two share a common ancestor though. There have been a lot of ancient elephant type fossils found too by the way.
Assuming-facts-in-dispute is circular logic.
What facts-in-dispute am I assuming?
Experiential evidence/testimony is never to be taken as valid by itself. Thousands of brainwashed Westerners have converted to Islam based on "the evidence" that the Koran is an inspired book.
The evidence that I'm using to show that evolution is true is not anecdotal or experiential. It's physical evidence.
Again, this is circular reasoning. Evolution is the only face of methodological naturalism because you say it is.
Evolution isn't the face of methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is used in all of science. It's the way things are done.
Even scientists who believe in G-d have to test things to find a natural cause of natural phenomena.
a: This is a classic strawman. By characterizing the opposing side of being of the ilk that does not believe in pathogens, which we can observe empirically, you can dismiss them as ignorant without actually refuting their POV.
That's not what I meant at all. I was trying to give an example that if "Evil spirits" had been a sufficient answer, then pathogens never would have been discovered. Imagine this scenario:
Person1: This cold is awful, I wonder what causes colds?
Person2: You've done something to anger G-d, that's why you have a cold
Person1: What if it's caused by something physical? I don't think I've done anything wrong
Person2: Blasphemy!
Science says that "G-d did it" or "spirits did it" is not a sufficient answer to this kind of question. Methodological naturalism says there must be a natural explanation for such phenomena and seeks to find it.
b: Yes, I believe that some disease is caused by evil spirits, in certain circumstances, and/or even by G-d himself, at times.
This isn't how things work most of the time though. Miracles or divine intervention like this really don't apply to the scientific method. I'm not in disagreement with you on this point. It's just that if people thought that all disease was caused by this, we wouldn't have all the medicines and therapies and vaccines we have today. People who are bitten by a rabid animal for example used to be condemned to a painful death. Now they can be saved with a vaccine regimen if caught early enough.
More of this mischaracterizing of evolution opponents. Show me one creation biologist who has an animistic worldview.
I never said that. I just said that you can't allow supernatural explanations for natural phenomena in a scientific context.
Evolution, the way that you believe that it took place, would truly have to be the ultimate "miracle".
Not really. It works by making small modifications to what's already there, that add up over time to big differences.
"Testable predictions"? You mean because organisms with an astronomical reproductive rate like bacteria and insects show gene culling (natural selection) within an observable timeframe when unnaturally tested by chemical poisons?
Bacteria are great for this because they have very short generation turnover so you can see evolution happen more quickly. However there are other predictions. For example "A dog will not give birth to a lizard" is an example of a prediction. Evolution says that a dog will only give birth to a dog. Only slight modifications would happen in one generation, like for example slightly longer ears.
What "testable predictions" in Darwinian evolutionism have been borne out in macrobiotic organisms?
There are three predictions discussed here:
http://www.dbskeptic.com/2008/05/19/evolution-makes-testable-predictions/
The first is about predicting that a method of imperfect reproduction would be found, which has been found.
The second says that changes in species would be observable. This has been observed such as the development of different dog breeds, the loss of eyes in cave fish, and fish that mature younger as more fishing is done.
The third says that fossils of extinct species would be found. You see in Darwin's time we didn't have the extensive fossil record that we have now. He could only predict that such things would be found. And they were! And many of them were such excellent examples of transitionals that I think even he would have been surprised.
If you have time to browse through it, Serb Avenger, I highly recommend this article to you. It's called 29 evidences of macroevolution:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
-
Yes different species of giraffe may have existed in the past just as different species of horse exist today [eg draught horse, thoroughbred, quarter horse, etc] but that is not the same thing as a horse or a giraffe being descended from a fish.
There is a lot more time involved between the Devonian and now than when horse breeding began and now.
There is a world of difference between adaptation to an environment for a particular type of creature [eg a giraffe progressively adapting and growing a longer neck over many successive generations in order to reach food in tall trees] to that same giraffe being evolved from a fish. Is it not a fact that evolutionists claim that one species of animal "evolved" into another completely different species?
It wasn't exactly fish to giraffe. There were a lot of steps in between there. It would really be against evolution if a fish produced a mammal like you're making it sound.
For evey single species of animal to have ever lived on the earth - literally numbering in the Billions - that according to the evolution hyothesis supposedly "evolved" from one animal species into another [eg a fish to an amphibian to reptile then to a bird, etc.] there would have to be at least ONE fossil somewhere in the world preserved showing the supposed transitional evolutionary change from one species of animal into another totally different species of animal. That translates to Billions upon Billions of evolutionary transitional phases over Hundreds of Millions of years for every single type of creature that ever existed - including insects.
I understand that not every species of animal to have ever lived is going to be preserved as a fossil, but it is highly illogical to use that argument as a foundation to explain away the complete lack of fossil evidence for the Billions upon Billions of transitional creatures that would have to have existed between one species evolving into another totally different species.
Somehow people have the understanding that there are no transitional fossils. I don't know why they have this idea because there have been a LOT of transitional fossils found. Maybe people believe this because of creationist leaders coming out and saying things like "there are no transitional fossils". Of course, no matter how many transitional fossils are discovered, it would just blow their worldview apart to recognize that evidence, so they continue to deny it.
It is stretching logic and credibility to breaking point to suggest that not one of these transitional creatures has been preserved as a fossil or that we just haven't been looking hard enough in order to be able to find it.
They have been found.
I'm going to make a list of some transitionals with links to pages about more, but I'll have to do it in another post.
-
My favorite transitional is Acanthostega. It's like the stereotypical "Darwin fish" on people's cars. It used its little feet to move around in the water, but they probably weren't strong enough to support it on dry land. Icthyostega is similar, and probably used its limbs to move from puddle to puddle. These are both fish-amphibian transitionals because they are not exactly lobe-finned fish but don't have all the amphibian characters either. They are a blend of the two.
Reptile-mammal transitionals include the following:
a.Sphenacodon (late Pennsylvanian to early Permian, about 270 million years ago (Mya)). Lower jaw is made of multiple bones; the jaw hinge is fully reptilian. No eardrum.
b.Biarmosuchia (late Permian). One of the earliest therapsids. Jaw hinge is more mammalian. Upper jaw is fixed. Hindlimbs are more upright.
c.Procynosuchus (latest Permian). A primitive cynodont, a group of mammal-like therapsids. Most of the lower jaw bones are grouped in a small complex near the jaw hinge.
d.Thrinaxodon (early Triassic). A more advanced cynodont. An eardrum has developed in the lower jaw, allowing it to hear airborne sound. Its quadrate and articular jaw bones could vibrate freely, allowing them to function for sound transmission while still functioning as jaw bones. All four legs are fully upright.
e.Probainognathus (mid-Triassic, about 235 Mya). It has two jaw joints: mammalian and reptilian (White 2002a).
f.Diarthrognathus (early Jurassic, 209 Mya). An advanced cynodont. It still has a double jaw joint, but the reptilian joint functions almost entirely for hearing.
g.Morganucodon (early Jurassic, about 220 Mya). It still has a remnant of the reptilian jaw joint (Kermack et al. 1981).
h.Hadrocodium (early Jurassic). Its middle ear bones have moved from the jaw to the cranium (Luo et al. 2001; White 2002b).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC215.html
Dinosaur to bird transitionals:
•Sinosauropteryx prima. A dinosaur covered with primitive feathers, but structurally similar to unfeathered dinosaurs Ornitholestes and Compsognathus (Chen et al. 1998; Currie and Chen 2001).
•Ornithomimosaurs, therizinosaurs, and oviraptorosaurs. The oviraptorosaur Caudipteryx had a body covering of tufted feathers and had feathers with a central rachis on its wings and tail (Ji et al. 1998). Feathers are also known from the therizinosaur Beipiaosaurus (Xu et al. 1999a). Several other birdlike characters appear in these dinosaurs, including unserrated teeth, highly pneumatized skulls and vertebrae, and elongated wings. Oviraptorids also had birdlike eggs and brooding habits (Clark et al. 1999).
•Deinonychosaurs (troodontids and dromaeosaurs). These are the closest known dinosaurs to birds. Sinovenator, the most primitive troodontid, is especially similar to Archaeopteryx (Xu et al. 2002). Byronosaurus, another troodontid, had teeth nearly identical to primitive birds (Makovicky et al. 2003). Microraptor, the most primitive dromaeosaur, is also the most birdlike; specimens have been found with undisputed feathers on their wings, legs, and tail (Hwang et al. 2002; Xu et al. 2003). Sinornithosaurus also was covered with a variety of feathers and had a skull more birdlike than later dromaeosaurs (Xu, Wang, and Wu 1999; Xu and Wu 2001; Xu et al. 2001).
•Protarchaeopteryx, alvarezsaurids, Yixianosaurus and Avimimus. These are birdlike dinosaurs of uncertain placement, each potentially closer to birds than deinonychosaurs are. Protarchaeopteryx has tail feathers, uncompressed teeth, and an elongated manus (hand/wing) (Ji et al. 1998). Yixianosaurus has an indistinctly preserved feathery covering and hand/wing proportions close to birds (Xu and Wang 2003). Alvarezsaurids (Chiappe et al. 2002) and Avimimus (Vickers-Rich et al. 2002) have other birdlike features.
•Archaeopteryx. This famous fossil is defined to be a bird, but it is actually less birdlike in some ways than some genera mentioned above (Paul 2002; Maryanska et al. 2002).
•Shenzhouraptor (Zhou and Zhang 2002), Rahonavis (Forster et al. 1998), Yandangornis and Jixiangornis. All of these birds were slightly more advanced than Archaeopteryx, especially in characters of the vertebrae, sternum, and wing bones.
•Sapeornis (Zhou and Zhang 2003), Omnivoropteryx, and confuciusornithids (e.g., Confuciusornis and Changchengornis; Chiappe et al. 1999). These were the first birds to possess large pygostyles (bone formed from fused tail vertebrae). Other new birdlike characters include seven sacral vertebrae, a sternum with a keel (some species), and a reversed hallux (hind toe).
•Enantiornithines, including at least nineteen species of primitive birds, such as Sinornis (Sereno and Rao 1992; Sereno et al. 2002), Gobipteryx (Chiappe et al. 2001), and Protopteryx (Zhang and Zhou 2000). Several birdlike features appeared in enantiornithines, including twelve or fewer dorsal vertebrae, a narrow V-shaped furcula (wishbone), and reduction in wing digit bones.
•Patagopteryx, Apsaravis, and yanornithids (Chiappe 2002; Clarke and Norell 2002). More birdlike features appeared in this group, including changes to vertebrae and development of the sternal keel.
•Hesperornis, Ichthyornis, Gansus, and Limenavis. These birds are almost as advanced as modern species. New features included the loss of most teeth and changes to leg bones.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html
-
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html
So crocodiles and birds are genetically related with difference of the feathers.
And whales, cow, human and chimp are genetically related with common presence of a placenta.
So the level of genetics, civilization, culture, thoughts and technology may differentiate between human and chimp.
-
These pages have more transitionals than you could ever ask to find:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
-
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/phylo.html
So crocodiles and birds are genetically related with difference of the feathers.
And whales, cow, human and chimp are genetically related with common presence of a placenta.
So the level of genetics, civilization, culture, thoughts and technology may differentiate between human and chimp.
Crocodiles are the closest living relatives of birds today but that doesn't mean they're actually closely related. Crocodiles are a type of reptile called an archosaur. They were related to dinosaurs but on a different branch of the tree so to speak. So really crocodiles and birds aren't very closely related at all, but among creatures that live today, they're closer to birds than other reptiles are. I hope that makes sense.
Whales, cows, humans, and chimps are all placental mammals. That reminds me of something fun.
Look at these two creatures:
Squirrel:
http://talentedapps.files.wordpress.com/2008/12/best-squirrel-shot.jpg
and Numbat
http://www.life.umd.edu/classroom/bsci338m/Image_Archives/Marsupialia/numbat.jpg
They look really similar, right? You would think they might be related, but a squirrel is a placental mammal, and a numbat is a marsupial. That means that squirrels are actually more closely related to all other placental mammals than they are to that numbat. Actually this is a closer relative to the squirrel than the numbat is:
http://th241.photobucket.com/albums/ff313/mikepatton_forza/Humpback_Whale_underwater.jpg
Science is fun!
-
It is also likely that the Seals, Seal Lions and Walrus may be undergoing a faster transition, if not towards extinction.
http://www.kidport.com/RefLib/Science/animals/Seals.htm
-
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1b.html#mamm
[Note: a classic study of chicken embryos showed that chicken bills can be induced to develop teeth, indicating that chickens (and perhaps other modern birds) still retain the genes for making teeth. Also note that molecular data shows that crocodiles are birds' closest living relatives.]
-
Syggue yeah the birds developing teeth was really neat. :) Also big birds like ostriches have an arm with a finger on it and a claw. You can see this on their wing when you look under it.
-
Syggue yeah the birds developing teeth was really neat. :) Also big birds like ostriches have an arm with a finger on it and a claw. You can see this on their wing when you look under it.
Yes, and the lion cubs after birth have spots like panther on their skins, which later gets changed. This may be because of an ancient hidden genetic imprint.
-
Syggue yeah the birds developing teeth was really neat. :) Also big birds like ostriches have an arm with a finger on it and a claw. You can see this on their wing when you look under it.
Yes, and the lion cubs after birth have spots like panther on their skins, which later gets changed. This may be because of an ancient hidden genetic imprint.
The spots help them blend in because their mothers hide them in the grass when they go to hunt.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marozi
Marozi Lion can be an interesting deviation during the modern times to show the deviation of genetics. Although it is not certain whether it was a sterile crossbreed or a regular breed.
-
I'd never heard of that lion before. That must have been a beautiful animal! I wonder if lion breeders could recreate that pattern? Of course that may not be responsible considering how many lions need to be in sanctuaries now because people took them on who didn't know how to care for a big cat properly. There are a lot of big cats around the Houston area that people keep and I don't think most of the owners know what they're doing. I support people's right to own exotic pets but only if they educate themselves as much as they can first and then make a best effort to give that animal a healthy life.
-
I wonder where the talking horses and the flying pigs are? If evolution is the fact, there should be much more diversity than we see today. I expected to see people with 12-20 fingers and two heads {because two heads are better than one}. Why only 2 eyes, why not eyes on the back of the head... Wouldn't this make a creature more safe because he could see any preditors coming from behind? Where are all these mutations which should have created all kinds of monsters?
Because it serves no beneficial purpose for there be flying pigs or flying cows. and two headed pigs cannot survive with the designs which you describe...rather pigs that can multiply faster and be more vicious will pass those genes on...
Wild pigs in north america used to be more of a pinkish color and now are much more brown in color and hairier...why? because those specific genes indicate a higher survivability. Pigs with wings wouldn't make sense because they would be too heavy to fly and therefore compete with other birds for food.
Each animal that has become what they are in this time today are meant to be what they are today unless the earth environment changed so drastically that different genetic characteristics are needed for their surivival. This can take millions of years for some species.
-
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.
It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.
Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals survive better without such a costly organ.
And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?
giraffes didn't grow long necks...each successive generation over 1000's if not more years has given a higher surivivability in that trait to that animal.
-
I love Dr. Dan's take on all of this! thanks this is a very good point! ;D
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.
It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.
Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals survive better without such a costly organ.
And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?
giraffes didn't grow long necks...each successive generation over 1000's if not more years has given a higher surivivability in that trait to that animal.
-
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.
It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.
Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals survive better without such a costly organ.
And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?
giraffes didn't grow long necks...each successive generation over 1000's if not more years has given a higher surivivability in that trait to that animal.
But how did the ancestors survive if they didn't have the long necks in the first place? They should have become extinct very quickly, or never have even lived. One cannot just evolve to survive. This is the paradox which is posed by your scenario. How can something evolve to be 'more fit' than what survived before it? Obviously the trees didn't get taller and giraffes with long necks seem more vulnerable to carnivores so it seems less survivable. Evolution doesn't really explain a lot of questions in this area.
It is a nice theory which can be used for good or for evil.
-
But how did the ancestors survive if they didn't have the long necks in the first place?
The Okapi is a modern-day short-necked giraffid. It has survived all this time. Each stage would have been fully functional, or at least more advantageous to be selected for. Honanotherium was a shorter version of today's giraffe but the fact that fossil remains were found of this species proves that it was successful enough to have lived.
They should have become extinct very quickly, or never have even lived. One cannot just evolve to survive. This is the paradox which is posed by your scenario. How can something evolve to be 'more fit' than what survived before it?
That's a good question. Sometimes opportunties arise that weren't there before, or there is less competition for a particular resource and so it's advantageous to take advantage of that resource. A lot of the grazers on the African plains eat different parts of the plants, so that they are not necessarily in direct competition with each other, even though they are all grazers.
Obviously the trees didn't get taller and giraffes with long necks seem more vulnerable to carnivores so it seems less survivable. Evolution doesn't really explain a lot of questions in this area.
Answering questions is what science is all about. If there isn't an answer yet, then use science to find it. :) Of course I am pretty sure there probably is an explanation for this, but I'm not 100% sure what the answer is either right now. However there must have been an advantage in targeting that particular food source to the giraffid species.
It is a nice theory which can be used for good or for evil.
A very useful theory, and it can be used for good or evil just like almost everything else in science.
-
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.
It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.
Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals survive better without such a costly organ.
And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?
giraffes didn't grow long necks...each successive generation over 1000's if not more years has given a higher surivivability in that trait to that animal.
But how did the ancestors survive if they didn't have the long necks in the first place? They should have become extinct very quickly, or never have even lived. One cannot just evolve to survive. This is the paradox which is posed by your scenario. How can something evolve to be 'more fit' than what survived before it? Obviously the trees didn't get taller and giraffes with long necks seem more vulnerable to carnivores so it seems less survivable. Evolution doesn't really explain a lot of questions in this area.
It is a nice theory which can be used for good or for evil.
I cannot give a definate answer. However, i can give you a speculation of what MIGHT have taken place.
One thing to understand is that animals might evolve by themselves..OR they might evolve with the habitat that surrounds them.
in the instance of the short necked giraffe eventually giving way to long necked giraffes...Here is one possibility: The short necked giraffes had bushes and shorter trees to eat from. The taller trees surrounding them survived while the shorter ones began growing less. As shorter tree food became more scarce, the giraffe like animal with the longer necks were able to survive because they could eat from the shorter trees and taller trees while the shorter necked giraffe like animal only had one type of shrub to eat from...because of the competition and survivability, the taller necked giraffes were able to spread their genes for longer necks more easily than the shorter necked ones which had less of an advantage.
It MIGHT be an answer...
-
Not to detract from the great RubyStars who is obviously very skilled in arguing the case for the theory of evolution, but I have to concur with brother Muman's analysis. Successive random genetic mutations would produce far more bizarre looking creatures and natural selection would favor such freakish-looking mutations as they would be far more beneficial to the creatures' survival, as Muman mentioned. This is one of the most serious problems with the random mutation aspect of the evolution theory.
It's only random within certain constraints. If a pig gave birth to a baby with wings then that would be a big argument AGAINST evolution.
Another point to consider is that even if a creature is possible of developing a particular trait (say, 20 fingers), and this trait would have some beneficial aspects to it, it wouldn't be selected for in the population if the cost of maintaining that feature didn't outweight its benefit. Think of the enlarged brain of humans for example. It's very expensive in terms of oxygen needs, food needs, etc. It does give more benefit that cost though in our case. Other animals survive better without such a costly organ.
And giraffes grew long necks so they could reach the fruits high up in the tree... What happened to all the previous generations of giraffes which could not reach the food high up in the trees? They must have gone extinct? How could the species live if it could not eat for all those generations, just so that it could grow a long neck?
giraffes didn't grow long necks...each successive generation over 1000's if not more years has given a higher surivivability in that trait to that animal.
But how did the ancestors survive if they didn't have the long necks in the first place? They should have become extinct very quickly, or never have even lived. One cannot just evolve to survive. This is the paradox which is posed by your scenario. How can something evolve to be 'more fit' than what survived before it? Obviously the trees didn't get taller and giraffes with long necks seem more vulnerable to carnivores so it seems less survivable. Evolution doesn't really explain a lot of questions in this area.
It is a nice theory which can be used for good or for evil.
Remember That Evolution is completely random and based soley on mistakes that are made when DNA is copied. Most mutations are harmful and about 99 % of are species that have ever lived are now extinct. Nothing adapts to the environment, the changes are just copy errors. Certainly, an environmental insult, such as increased radiation levels, chemical change in a food source etc can lead to a mutation, yet this change is totally up in the air. Also a massive environmental change can speed up the rate of mutation and thus the rate of evolution. This is called punctuated equilibrium. A good example of this is the K- T boundary 65 million years ago.
The members of a species that gain an stable, inheritable change in their genotype, and thus Phenotype will have more offspring that those members of that species that do not have this mutation. This means that over time this change will be passed on, conserved, in the entire species.
also, how would one be able to say what a "bizarre looking" creature would look like. The term bizarre is a completely subjective term