Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Evolution vs. Creation

View Poll Results: Evolution vs. Creation
Poll Options:
God made it all is six days, 6000 years ago. 16 votes (13.79%)
Life on Earth gradually evolved over billions of years. 100 votes (86.21%)
Voters: 116. You may not vote on this poll
Evolution vs. Creation (Page 5)
Thread Tools
spiky_dog
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Plainview, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2004, 04:41 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
I wholly disagree for it is at the very core of understanding evolution. I'm not to question [how the cell arose]? I'll deal with the rest later, must get on to work...
i'm not an anthropoligist so i can't comment on austrolopithecus. you are correct, however, in that modern evolutionary theory dictates that we evolved from a common ancestor, not directly from chimps or apes.

as for the above comment, yes, please keep your discussions separate. evolution does not hinge on how the first cell may have came to be. since attacking current theories on how life arose is independent of evolution, i can only conclude you throw in your argument against it to confuse and obfuscate the real issues. disagree? well then please explain why "it as at the very core of understanding evolution".
     
SimpleLife
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2004, 08:56 PM
 
Originally posted by spiky_dog:
i'm not an anthropoligist so i can't comment on austrolopithecus. you are correct, however, in that modern evolutionary theory dictates that we evolved from a common ancestor, not directly from chimps or apes.

as for the above comment, yes, please keep your discussions separate. evolution does not hinge on how the first cell may have came to be. since attacking current theories on how life arose is independent of evolution, i can only conclude you throw in your argument against it to confuse and obfuscate the real issues. disagree? well then please explain why "it as at the very core of understanding evolution".
But why should it have been a "first" cell?

If we use our imaginations, we could probably find something better than "one first cause".

Is a cake made from the the first grain of sugar? Cells are amalgams of smaller organisms. The first cells may have been quite differnt than any cells we imagine now; they may have been collectivities of virii (or something) that grew a form of association leading to an integration we would call cells.

Couldn't that be part of an evolutive process?
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2004, 09:22 PM
 
Personally, I don't see how these skulls that look very similar can be different enough to be different species.

I mean, compare George Bush to John Kerry, skull-wise. GWB's face is often compared to that of a chimp, while John Kerry's face is very long (and I'm sure there is a difference in the size of their craniums as well). I'd bet that if a pro-evolution scientist were given their skulls to examine and he didn't know where they were from, he would call them a different species.

Now obviously I'm no scientist, so this is just a layman's opinion, but there are only so many features a skull (or a partial skull in many cases) can have. And the features I've seen people claim make a different species (such as enhanced brow size or something) could easily be variance in the same species IMO.
     
spiky_dog
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Plainview, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2004, 10:11 PM
 
deej5871, interesting point about variance. what we do not see in human variance, at least not outside of deformities, however, are things like dramatically reduced brain size, and altered relative sizes of different brain regions: link to a site discussing this.



the red homo sapiens brain is overlayed over the blue homo erectus brain. O is the occipital (lobe), P is parietal, T is temporal, F is frontal.

Originally posted by SimpleLife:
But why should it have been a "first" cell?

If we use our imaginations, we could probably find something better than "one first cause".

Is a cake made from the the first grain of sugar? Cells are amalgams of smaller organisms. The first cells may have been quite differnt than any cells we imagine now; they may have been collectivities of virii (or something) that grew a form of association leading to an integration we would call cells.

Couldn't that be part of an evolutive process?
perhaps, and that's what's implied by the RNA world theory that i espouse and have posted about several times before, with the ribosome being perhaps the best supporting example. (note that the rna world doesn't suggest a collection of virii -- i bring it up because it is a non-DNA starting point.) my point is that life could have arisen any number of ways, including at the end of poseidon's triton or whatever you please, and that would not invalidate the process of evolution.
     
SimpleLife
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2004, 10:15 PM
 
Originally posted by spiky_dog:
(...) my point is that life could have arisen any number of ways, including at the end of poseidon's triton or whatever you please, and that would not invalidate the process of evolution.
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2004, 11:07 PM
 
Originally posted by deej5871:
And the features I've seen people claim make a different species (such as enhanced brow size or something) could easily be variance in the same species IMO.
Then you really haven't seen the claims, or haven't studied them.

Figure out what the difference between a chimp and homo-sapien skulls are, then you will see a clear (im going to use that word a lot seem to hate... sorry) transition between the two.

Sorry I don't have time to go in to it now, I will if you are really interested (who am I kidding I probably will anyway)
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2004, 11:15 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
I do however believe in applying the same level of scrutiny as to the information at hand regarding the findings and conclusions of scientists in both the evolution as well as the creation arguments.
No, no, no.

Evolution is, always has been and always should be argued with a far greater level of scrutiny than creationism. It doesn't take much scrutiny to refute creationism, there was enough evidence to do this over two hundred years ago. But creationists aren't prepared to do even that little scrutiny. Their scrutiny consists of "the bible says so, I believe it, that ends the argument, there is nothing real to scrutinize."

But that's today's creationists. It was the creationists of two hundred years ago who scrutinised their own evidence and deduced the existance of evolution.
( Last edited by mikellanes; Nov 19, 2004 at 12:02 AM. )
     
SimpleLife
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 18, 2004, 11:43 PM
 
Originally posted by mikellanes:
It was the creationists of two hundred years ago who scrutinised their own evidence and deduced the existance of evolution.
I agree with this excellent point. We do need to revise our positions as evidence pile up.

Of course, interpretation varies, but we cannot deny changes through time in the morphology of the various living beings.

Edited for diplomatic reasons.

;o)
( Last edited by SimpleLife; Nov 20, 2004 at 08:33 AM. )
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2004, 12:04 AM
 
Ok, I somewhat agree, at least on emotional part as I don't want to hurt the debate I have edited my statement. Can you edit your quote of it?
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2004, 12:11 AM
 
Originally posted by deej5871:
but there are only so many features a skull (or a partial skull in many cases) can have. And the features I've seen people claim make a different species (such as enhanced brow size or something) could easily be variance in the same species IMO.
Comparative anatomists do a lot more than casually look at a brow size. The classic illustration of skulls of the hominid line is this:



Looking at the picture, one sees several main themes. For example, consider the slope of the face, or the shape of the anterior skull above the face. A larger version of the image is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html

The classification of fossils into a species is not based on just one feature, but on suites of shared features. And the people doing this kind of work really does worry about within-species variability as distinguished from between-species variability, and they actually measure that stuff and make calculations of it rather than depend on casual guesses. And they worry about it longitudinally as well as in cross-section -- through time and across space at a given time. The data are thin on the grtound, but that doesn't mean the folks studying it aren't aware of those issues. Here:http://anthro.palomar.edu/homo/homo_2%20.htm is a general discussion aimed at a lay audience which contains remarks about skeletal variability within Homo erectus, and this site: http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanor.../genushomo.htm spends some space on variability across various Homo species.
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2004, 12:34 AM
 
Originally posted by deej5871:
[B]Personally, I don't see how these skulls that look very similar can be different enough to be different species./B]
Here is a discussion that may help you understand better? it is in layman's terms as well.

http://www.christianforums.com/t99342

Great post I think and interesting diagrams, helps you conceptualize and get away from the arguments we have seen here.
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2004, 10:15 AM
 
Again, Mikellanes you are supposing the evidence you've presented in the "fossil record" you show to be irrefutable. Did you know that significant debate is had regarding the "connection" you've made? Why are you trying so hard to connect ape with man? This is not necessarily the position embraced by modern science today you might know. For example; Homo erectus fossils have been discovered that range anywhere in age from a very recent 30,000 (Swisher 1996) years ago to more than 1.6 million years ago completely unchanged. The other fact of the matter is if the 'transition' if you will is this slight we'd have literally thousands of complete examples. You also might know that In some cases H. erectus fossils are younger than H. sapiens and Neanderthal fossils. This poses a rather large problem IMHO. The truth in my view, is that the fossil record has been laid out in such a way as to make us believe we evolved from ape while the features of the ape classify them as such with great distinction between that classified as man. Data, in my view has been manipulated to support a presupposition and not the other way around. Pithecus for example does not meet 'transitional' requirements. You may say it's a start and we're still looking. Fair enough. I believe that's incorrect however.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2004, 10:51 AM
 
It should also be noted, one suggested that chance does not play a part in evolution and that I'm mistaken to rely so heavily on the chance peice of the debate. Keep in mind, I'm not the one that labeled genetic drift as 'random' genetic drift. The community of science did this to accurately tag a process of evolution...random. Now regarding what we know of that which is random, it is disorderly. You cannot take matter, add disorder and come up with something requiring more order. This we know for absolute certain. That's what causes DNA change, environmental forces requiring change, failed repair of DNA leading to mutations. Mutations often referred to as "junk DNA" because the likelihood of it being worth anything to the specimen is .03% at best. That .03% must be 'fit' enough within DNA to propogate, spread the mutation to the next generation, then more mutations must be added (with .03% success at best) to the next generation which must live long enough to propogate another generation and more mutations, then another generation-it's mutations, another generation-it's mutations...This is where actuaries have concluded that the odds of such happening with success from what we know as "absorbing state" are staggeringly low because of A-the amount of time required (don't be surprised if most things age by 1000 years per year as we uncover more discovery) and B. the population of said species and need to change significantly successfully carrying all known alleles to the next generation. We know a species can 'adapt', but it's only allowed to adapt within a parameter/micro evolution or adaptive evolution. Complete change has not been observed. Why? Because it's statistically impossible. I am not willing to embrace this statistical impossibility because man has given it a label that sounds good. It doesn't look good. Again, I don't cast any folks off as quacks, we're still learning. I'm not trying to offend, I simply don't support. Not yet.
( Last edited by ebuddy; Nov 19, 2004 at 10:57 AM. )
ebuddy
     
spiky_dog
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Plainview, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2004, 03:27 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
It should also be noted, one suggested that chance does not play a part in evolution and that I'm mistaken to rely so heavily on the chance peice of the debate. Keep in mind, I'm not the one that labeled genetic drift as 'random' genetic drift. The community of science did this to accurately tag a process of evolution...random.
please read stephen jay gould's "full house" for an explanation of how random variation can lead to increased complexity. for the math-literate, my single-sentence synopsis is that a random walk with a reflecting boundary on the left (less complexity) will trend over time to having a "tail" on the right (increased complexity).

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Now regarding what we know of that which is random, it is disorderly. You cannot take matter, add disorder and come up with something requiring more order. This we know for absolute certain. That's what causes DNA change, environmental forces requiring change, failed repair of DNA leading to mutations.
this is not true, and now i see where your earlier reference to the 2nd law of thermodynamics was going. you have been misinformed: the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that a CLOSED SYSTEM will increase in entropy. one organism does not represent a closed system (no one can deny that it doesn't interact with its environment, most trivially through breathing and eating), and there is thus no contradiction to generating increased complexity. again, read "full house".

Originally posted by ebuddy:
Mutations often referred to as "junk DNA" because the likelihood of it being worth anything to the specimen is .03% at best. That .03% must be 'fit' enough within DNA to propogate, spread the mutation to the next generation, then more mutations must be added (with .03% success at best) to the next generation which must live long enough to propogate another generation and more mutations, then another generation-it's mutations, another generation-it's mutations...
where did you come up with this "0.03%" figure? also, assuming mutations within the germline, why do you insist that mutations must pile up (assuming i parse your english correctly)? what's so shocking and implausible about having one mutation in the germline, which leads to offspring that reproduce at a higher rate?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
This is where actuaries have concluded that the odds of such happening with success from what we know as "absorbing state" are staggeringly low because of A-the amount of time required (don't be surprised if most things age by 1000 years per year as we uncover more discovery)
what? what is "absorbing state"? what are you talking about with "things [that] age by 1000 years per year"? are you talking about anthropologists fudging dating data?

Originally posted by ebuddy:
and B. the population of said species and need to change significantly successfully carrying all known alleles to the next generation. We know a species can 'adapt', but it's only allowed to adapt within a parameter/micro evolution or adaptive evolution. Complete change has not been observed. Why? Because it's statistically impossible.
no, it has not been observed because humans have only been looking for what, 150 years? no one expects pigs to learn to fly in that time period...

once again, please go read "full house". and/or demonstrate without hand-waving and unsupported ".03%" figures exactly why "complete change" is "statistically impossible".
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2004, 03:36 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
Again, Mikellanes you are supposing the evidence you've presented in the "fossil record" you show to be irrefutable.
Who said that?

Did you know that significant debate is had regarding the "connection" you've made? Why are you trying so hard to connect ape with man?
Because it's fairly obvious to anthropologists that apes and men have a common ancestor?

This is not necessarily the position embraced by modern science today you might know.
You seem to know more about modern science than modern scientists do.

For example; Homo erectus fossils have been discovered that range anywhere in age from a very recent 30,000 (Swisher 1996) years ago to more than 1.6 million years ago completely unchanged. The other fact of the matter is if the 'transition' if you will is this slight we'd have literally thousands of complete examples. You also might know that In some cases H. erectus fossils are younger than H. sapiens and Neanderthal fossils. This poses a rather large problem IMHO.
Not at all. Scientists knows that H. erectus and H. sapiens co-existed.

The truth in my view, is that the fossil record has been laid out in such a way as to make us believe we evolved from ape while the features of the ape classify them as such with great distinction between that classified as man. Data, in my view has been manipulated to support a presupposition and not the other way around.
Forgery? Come on. Do you have slightest evidence? Do you know how many people have studied these fossils? Do you know how many fossils there are?


Pithecus for example does not meet 'transitional' requirements. You may say it's a start and we're still looking. Fair enough. I believe that's incorrect however.
Wow, you don't accept one (1) example. What about the others?
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2004, 03:42 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
It should also be noted, one suggested that chance does not play a part in evolution and that I'm mistaken to rely so heavily on the chance peice of the debate. Keep in mind, I'm not the one that labeled genetic drift as 'random' genetic drift. The community of science did this to accurately tag a process of evolution...random. Now regarding what we know of that which is random, it is disorderly.
Randomness is required but plays a fairly small role. The whole process is very far from random.

You cannot take matter, add disorder and come up with something requiring more order.
How do you add disorder really? Mutations aren't always disorder if that's what you meant. Did you know about natural selection?


This we know for absolute certain. That's what causes DNA change, environmental forces requiring change, failed repair of DNA leading to mutations. Mutations often referred to as "junk DNA" because the likelihood of it being worth anything to the specimen is .03% at best.
No, mutations aren't referred to as "junk DNA". Junk DNA plays a large role in evidence for common descent however.

That .03% must be 'fit' enough within DNA to propogate, spread the mutation to the next generation, then more mutations must be added (with .03% success at best) to the next generation which must live long enough to propogate another generation and more mutations, then another generation-it's mutations, another generation-it's mutations...This is where actuaries have concluded that the odds of such happening with success from what we know as "absorbing state" are staggeringly low because of A-the amount of time required (don't be surprised if most things age by 1000 years per year as we uncover more discovery) and B. the population of said species and need to change significantly successfully carrying all known alleles to the next generation. We know a species can 'adapt', but it's only allowed to adapt within a parameter/micro evolution or adaptive evolution. Complete change has not been observed. Why? Because it's statistically impossible.
Arguments from incredulity. How come people who actually work with this doesn't at all agree with you? I don't know what you mean with "Complete change". It sounds like you think like Kent Hovind that dogs should give birth to pine-trees to support evolution. That's not only false, but would be nice evidence against evolution. You keep implying there's some kind of limit to adaption. THERE ISN'T. A genome doesn't have any memory of what genes has been mutated or duplicated. It can't know when or where to stop.


I am not willing to embrace this statistical impossibility because man has given it a label that sounds good. It doesn't look good. Again, I don't cast any folks off as quacks, we're still learning. I'm not trying to offend, I simply don't support. Not yet.
Maybe you can show us your statistical calculations? You've obviously missed out something. Perhaps the fact that regular populations contain more than one specimen. Also the fact that we're talking vast periods of time. Think of the results of selective breeding of dogs in the last 1000 years.

Now, disregard any statistics and probability, look at all the evidence we have from fossils, DNA, morphology, etc. and say with a straight face that you don't agree.

There are no serious modern scientists that reject the clear genetic, evolutionary, anatomical, behavioural, biochemical and even pestological relationship between ape and man - there are creationists who do so of course but they are not scientists. There is debate about some of the details such as that between those advocating an "out of africa" theory and those advocating a "multi regional" theory but that is science; if things were so cut and dried we wouldn't need to bother. Homo Erectus was an incredibly succesful species that managed to survive for longer than we have so far and to spread out from Africa to SE Asia. Erectus used tools and probably had a rudimentary language and in every way qualified as a "human" (and thus a member of the genus Homo). Erectus was also a very diverse species - not at all "unchanged" though some populations were less changed than others as is always the case in species covering such a wide range where maintenence of a homogeneous gene pool would have been difficult. I see no problem with the possibility that certain isolated populations of Erectus survived past the evolution of Homo Neanderthalis and Sapiens - why not? - no species evolves all at once, speciation events take place usually in a relatively isolated part of a population and then gradually spread out if they are succesful so you would expect to see precisely the pattern we do see - one species covering a wide area, then a relatively abrupt looking (but in fact gradual but only in one part of the overall population) replacement by another species, leaving behind pockets where the previous species may just hold on for longer where the new species has not yet taken over (and in some cases never does but not with man unfortunately).
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 19, 2004, 09:46 PM
 
Originally posted by mikellanes:
Comparative anatomists do a lot more than casually look at a brow size. The classic illustration of skulls of the hominid line is this:



Looking at the picture, one sees several main themes. For example, consider the slope of the face, or the shape of the anterior skull above the face. A larger version of the image is here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/hominids.html
What irks me about diagrams like this is that they always only have one example of the modern human skull, which means it is impossible for me, when looking at it, to have any idea what the skulls of other modern humans might look like. The whole point of my post before was a lot of these things could be considered variance in modern humans.

Some quick Googling revealing some possible support for my ideas:

Picture's caption from the site:The large eyebrow protrusions on Homo erectus skulls, and features such as the backward-sloping forehead, can be seen in a number of races in our own day, as in the Malaysian native shown here.

There were also many other sites that talked about the variance of modern human skulls, but this one seemed like the best one to get my point across because it has the Malaysian native in it.

Oh, and when I was talking about the brow thing being one of the main differences in the skulls, I think I may have been thinking of a show on Neanderthals (or was it tals? I dunno...) comparing their skulls to modern humans, which might not have been relative to this debate.

On a side note: I think it's funny how mikellanes and spiky_dog feel they must constantly assign homework. "Go to a look at this site and this site." "You should go read this book and it will tell you everything I want to say." Ebuddy tried to keep things simple by avoiding references, while people (mainly spiky_dog) basically demanded references and acted as if ebuddy would just straight-up lie just to win an internet argument.
     
spiky_dog
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Plainview, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 12:10 AM
 
Originally posted by deej5871:
On a side note: I think it's funny how mikellanes and spiky_dog feel they must constantly assign homework. "Go to a look at this site and this site." "You should go read this book and it will tell you everything I want to say." Ebuddy tried to keep things simple by avoiding references, while people (mainly spiky_dog) basically demanded references and acted as if ebuddy would just straight-up lie just to win an internet argument.
it's called "rigor". and it is justified, as if you're going to maintain a position opposite that of the mainstream community, talking in circles and waving your hands does not make for a convincing argument.
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 12:51 AM
 
Originally posted by deej5871:
I think it's funny how mikellanes and spiky_dog feel they must constantly assign homework. "Go to a look at this site and this site." "You should go read this book and it will tell you everything I want to say." Ebuddy tried to keep things simple by avoiding references, while people (mainly spiky_dog) basically demanded references and acted as if ebuddy would just straight-up lie just to win an internet argument.

You think that is funny? That is the WHOLE problem with people who "think that doesn't seem to make sense" or some **** like that.

I give you documents, studies criticized by 1000's of Scientists (people who spend their life RESEARCHING THESE FIELDS) Some things to look in to.

I have posted much on these forums I have asked blatant questions, when things got tuff people dropped out, I respect eBuddy for sticking here and presenting his point, even though his point is backed up with SQUAT, except maybe some almost word for word arguments from this site: http://www.giveshare.org

We are discussing evolution, this is about science this is about research this is about thousands of people scrutinizing work and then looking some more.

I know it is easy just to take someone's opinion and say yeah that fits what I believe and debate some shoddy banter, but **** use your brain.

If you don't care enough to do some research, get out do some field test for yourself, debate in an open forum somewhere or do something then you are just here for lip service.
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 12:58 AM
 
There's a really good Gallup report on Americans' attitudes about evolution. Some points:

� 45% are God-created-man-as-is creationists.
� Equal numbers, 35%, believe evolution is not well-supported by evidence as believe it is.
� 34% believe the Bible is the actual, literal word of God.

All I can say is, wow.

Here's what Gallup says:

What do we make of these responses? To be sure, most Americans are not scientists, and it's probable that the last formal exposure to biology and evolution theory for many came decades ago in high school or college -- if then. Confronted with this question asking for thoughts about a scientific theory, it's perhaps surprising that even more did not choose the "don't know enough to say" alternative.

Yet, this is not just any theory. It is one of the most basic theories in science today, and most biologists and other scientists believe that the theory is so well supported by data that it is a basic part of the scientific firmament. As National Geographic stated in its November cover story: "The evidence for evolution is overwhelming."

Thus, it is of great interest to the scientific community to find that the public appears just as willing to say that the theory of evolution "has not been well supported by the evidence" as it is to say that it has been well supported.

Certainly, as noted, some of this skepticism about the scientific validity of Darwin's theory comes from a lack of basic training or knowledge of science. But there's more to views of the theory of evolution than just scientific knowledge. The highly controversial aspect of the theory -- the one that caused such an uproar when Darwin first promulgated it almost a century and a half ago -- was that it implied a contradiction with the story of man's creation as told in the book of Genesis in the Bible.
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 02:05 AM
 
Originally posted by mikellanes:
You think that is funny? That is the WHOLE problem with people who "think that doesn't seem to make sense" or some **** like that.
Yeah, I do think it's funny. I also find it funny how un-funny you think my finding it funny is (Heh..that was kinda funny). FYI, I did not mean amusing when I said "funny". I was going by the 2nd definition (from dictionary.com): Strangely or suspiciously odd; curious.

I give you documents, studies criticized by 1000's of Scientists (people who spend their life RESEARCHING THESE FIELDS) Some things to look in to.
You realize there are people that are pro-creationism that would also be considered "scientists", right? Now, maybe they aren't as great in number as the evolution scientists, but they still exist.

We are discussing evolution, this is about science this is about research this is about thousands of people scrutinizing work and then looking some more.

I know it is easy just to take someone's opinion and say yeah that fits what I believe and debate some shoddy banter, but **** use your brain.

If you don't care enough to do some research, get out do some field test for yourself, debate in an open forum somewhere or do something then you are just here for lip service.
I would ask how much you would really look into some major pro-Creationism documents I send you on a hunt for? Would you really care enough to read every word of pages of documents about something you've already decided is wrong?

Now, really, you asking me to look at some links wasn't bad, and I actually did look at a few of them. But what really struck a nerve was spiky_dog asking eBuddy to go look at some book. Yeah, he's gonna take a trip to library or bookstore, take out or buy this book, spend his valuable time reading it, solely for the purpose of understanding someone's point in an internet debate. Yeah...right.

Besides, all I (and I think everyone else here) am arguing about is macroevolution, Not evolution in general, or all forms of evolution. We are not crazy "If the Bible says it we must believe it, word-for-word." people, which you continually try and call us by sending us to sites like your giveshare.org (which, 1. I have never been to before, and 2. is one of the most poorly designed websites I've seen in a while, so I wasn't able to navigate very far into it).

You also only replied to the "Side note" of my post, not the main content. I also find that funny.
     
spiky_dog
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Plainview, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 02:39 AM
 
Originally posted by deej5871:
Now, really, you asking me to look at some links wasn't bad, and I actually did look at a few of them. But what really struck a nerve was spiky_dog asking eBuddy to go look at some book. Yeah, he's gonna take a trip to library or bookstore, take out or buy this book, spend his valuable time reading it, solely for the purpose of understanding someone's point in an internet debate. Yeah...right.
good, i'm glad that it struck a nerve - perhaps it will later provoke some sort of reaction from your central nervous system as well. i sincerely hope ebuddy does go to the library, and reads that book some time. i don't take steven jay gould's word as the gospel, either, but reading his prose is much more worthwhile than reading this thread, to cite just one example. also note that "full house" is not only about evolution. it also has many other interesting thoughts, such as why we don't see .400 hitters in the major leagues any more.
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 10:27 AM
 
Originally posted by deej5871:
I would ask how much you would really look into some major pro-Creationism documents I send you on a hunt for? Would you really care enough to read every word of pages of documents about something you've already decided is wrong?

You also only replied to the "Side note" of my post, not the main content. I also find that funny.

Yes I have read every word of this thread and have read every link almost in their entirety, my search started years ago and I got to believing what I do during that search, nothing tells me I won't be at another place in the future so why stop now?

As for your main post, I was researching some info for you (in case you will actually read it) not just going off the cuff with my debunking.

That picture is an illustration. Two remarks. First, "considered variance in modern humans" by whom? A casual observer with no background in comparative morphology? That's not real convincing. The folks who spend their lives studing these things have a pretty good handle on the range of variability of the various traits, and are wholly aware of the problems that can raise. They're not stupid or uninformed. They actually have data -- measured properties with calculated variances -- for the traits of interest. One example:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10634689

Adult mandibles of 317 modern humans and 91 great apes were selected that showed no pathology. Adult mandibles of Pan troglodytes troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus and Gorilla gorilla gorilla and from 2 modern human populations (Zulu and Europeans from Spitalfields) were reliably sexed. Thirteen measurements were defined and included mandibular height, length and breadth in representative positions. Univariate statistical techniques and multivariate (principal component analysis and discriminant analysis) statistical techniques were used to investigate interspecific variability and sexual dimorphism in human and great ape mandibles, and intraspecific variability among the modern human mandibles. Analysis of interspecific differences revealed some pairs of variables with a tight linear relationship and others where Homo and the great apes pulled apart from one another due to shape differences. Homo and Pan are least sexually dimorphic in the mandible, Pan less so than Homo sapiens, but both the magnitude of sexual dimorphism and the distribution of sexually dimorphic measurements varied both among and between modern humans and great apes. Intraspecific variation among the 10 populations of modern humans was less than that generally reported in studies of crania (74.3% of mandibles were correctly classified into 1 of 10 populations using discriminant functions based on 13 variables as compared with 93% of crania from 17 populations based on 70 variables in one extensive study of crania). A subrecent European population (Poundbury) emerged as more different from a recent European population (Spitalfields) than other more diverse modern populations were from each other, suggesting considerable morphological plasticity in the mandible through time. This study forms a sound basis on which to explore mandibular variation in Neanderthals, early Homo sapiens and other more ancient fossil hominids.

See? They actually worry about that stuff.

How would you go about learning about the range of variation in, say, Homo sapiens skulls? How do you think I found that example? Are there ways of finding that kind of information on one's own? I don't begrudge the time spent looking stuff up for users, but a goal of doing so is to encourage people to find stuff on their own, to use the enormous resources available now. Back when I took physical anthropology there were no such resources; now they're accessible to anyone with a computer and a link to the Web.
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 10:51 AM
 
originally posted by the dogmatic scientific crusader Mikallanes; is backed up with SQUAT, except maybe some almost word for word arguments from this site: http://www.giveshare.org
I'm being completely honest here, never once-not ever have I gone to the site linked above. Not once. Can we stop with the errant conjecture and speculation now? It's solidifying my view that you are dogmatic in assuming anyone that says anything in opposition to your religion must somehow be a quack. Have you been paying attention to anything I've been saying?

Furthermore, I see a serious misunderstanding in general of mutation rate, it's role in popluation, how it affects reproduction, and the multiplication of said mutations causing an even more unlikelihood of reproduction. I'll get back to the absorbing state later, I've got a funeral to go to. Just an observation, I keep hearing "thousands of scientists have mulled over this data, etc..." yet they fail to realize the debates conducted within the scientific community regarding method, data compiled, and conclusion. You think it's just Creationists who have a problem with evolution? You're taking many, many things as irrefuteable fact when in fact they are very debateable, highly improbable, and rely on conditions we know aren't feasible. Again, more later. Oh, real quick-I touched on the Stephen Jay Gould thing and it seems many in the scientific community have cast him off as a relative quack. Again, I'm not saying that as I frankly don't know much of him-many evolutionists are saying that. Much of what he had to say was said prior to what we now know today as is generally the case. I urge you to re-read Stephen Jay Gould's works and reconsider his credibility in light of what we know today.
ebuddy
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 10:53 AM
 
Originally posted by deej5871:
All I (and I think everyone else here) am arguing about is macroevolution, Not evolution in general, or all forms of evolution.
There is no difference between "micro" and "macro" evolution. These terms are specious, all there is, is evolution... speciation is just evolution taking place over a long period of time. Period.

It is important to emphasize that all evolutionary processes take place in populations and in the genotypes of individuals, and are thus simultaneously "micro" evolutionary processes.

Hey I can see a pencil fall to the ground but that is microgravity. But how do we know gravity really keeps all those solar systems in place? Macrogravity is science fiction. It is faith and a religion. The religion of macrogravity.

Seconds are real. I experience seconds every day. It's obvious they exist and it would be stupid to deny them.
But millennia? Do you know anyone who's observed a complete millennium?
Exactly: millennia can't exist - that's just crazy talk.

Is a cake made from the the first grain of sugar? Cells are amalgams of smaller organisms. The first cells may have been quite differnt than any cells we imagine now; they may have been collectivities of virii (or something) that grew a form of association leading to an integration we would call cells.
Perhaps some amino acids and some energy...
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 11:00 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
I'm being completely honest here, never once-not ever have I gone to the site linked above. Not once. Can we stop with the errant conjecture and speculation now? It's solidifying my view that you are dogmatic in assuming anyone that says anything in opposition to your religion must somehow be a quack. Have you been paying attention to anything I've been saying?
I never said you went to that site did I? I can do a side by side comparison of what you are saying and the published report they link to, unless you wrote the reports Id have to conclude you were regurgitating what they are saying, not that I have a problem with this, but you do sound like the same school of thought as the authors.

Furthermore, I see a serious misunderstanding in general of mutation rate, it's role in popluation, how it affects reproduction, and the multiplication of said mutations causing an even more unlikelihood of reproduction. I'll get back to the absorbing state later, [/B]
Ok, when you post something I will get back to you... "see a serious misunderstanding" does not help me in any way.
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 11:06 AM
 
Can I get this answered?

Here was our discussion, and please note I do not think the lineage of hawks is from parakeets, this is just an example.

----------------------------------------------------------------
MAURY: It's also important to never mix the word evolution and adaptation as they are two wholly different things that can appear to be the same.
Adaptation however, is one life form changing to its environment
My parakeet will not evolve into a hawk.

MIKE: Would you accept that your parakeet could (over many generations and mutations) get a stronger beak (If most of the food that was around was too hard for the parakeets normal beak?)

MAURY: Of course -- and that's adaptation, not evolution.

MIKE: How about stronger wings because the food is heavier or because the trees are higher to nest in?

MAURY: That's an adaptation, too.

MAURY: Time is a measurement tool created and used by man, just like length is. Did God create inches? Yards? Meters? Time? No, man did.

MIKE: Hold up, back to the parakeet, you said it could never become a hawk, but already we have stronger beak and stronger wings, talons? what if it adapted to have stronger talons because the only food it could find was mice or rodents and it had to grab them?
What would stop you from saying a parakeet could become a hawk, what is the line?

MAURY: All you've described is a change in features. You haven't described a different classification of physiology and anatomy, species, etc.

MIKE: Name me what the differences between a parakeet and a hawk is? Now, among those differences what can't be called an adaption? So you accept a fish can develop lungs, but a bird can't develop gills? why is this?

MAURY: No answer.
----------------------------------------------------------------

I want to know how you can accept that a parakeet can adapt and grow stronger wings stronger beak, IF you only want to accept adaptation fine, we know in nature these animals that adapted or were bred (look back at the dogs) can no longer breed with one another, so because science doesn't classify them as another species they are not?

He says above "time, measurement, length, were created by man.
Then he says you haven't described a different species, isn't species a definition created by man? Isn't man responsible for saying what goes where. If you think god is, define Kinds for me.

I have described a different species, he agreed on the changes yet doesn't agree and drops out of the conversation. I don't understand what I am missing here.

eBuddy refutes the cichlid fishes, they are not the same anymore, the cannot breed with one another, they are different organisms.

Please answer the question what would it take for the cichlid fishes, in your view, to be a macro evolutionary change? Their DNA is different, they can no longer breed, physically they are different, do you refute this?

While you are answering, get back to the dog breeding, The Great dane and Chihuahua, what was their ancestor? Do you think they are different species? I know science doesn't classify them as different but why don't you?
( Last edited by mikellanes; Nov 20, 2004 at 12:07 PM. )
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 06:21 PM
 
eBuddy refutes the cichlid fishes, they are not the same anymore, the cannot breed with one another, they are different organisms.
Ironically, still all classified as cichlid fishes after all these thousands of years. Why? Because their genomes are virtually identical. This is variance using data already available. No new data was created. No new organs were created. Existing genes may shuffle to allow for environmental change, no new genes were created nor can they be...
Please answer the question what would it take for the cichlid fishes, in your view, to be a macro evolutionary change? Their DNA is different, they can no longer breed, physically they are different, do you refute this?
Why use cichlid fish as an example then? We have irrefutable proof of a problem with incest among humans. How could this be? My sister and I are surely the same species, why the difficulty in mating successfully? Ahhh, mutations. Shared mutations. I explained earlier that inability to mate alone does not differentiate the species. Would you agree that an Anglo-Euro man looks very different than an Aborigine? Are we different species? How could this be? I'll answer, variance among our kind within strict boundaries of our ability to micro-evolve or adapt. We will not macro-evolve. We may find it advantageous to fly, we will never grow wings. We won't even begin the process to grow wings. Why? Because it's not in the nucleic acids' encoding for homo to have wings. He never can, he never will no matter how badly he needs them. If environment poses a problem for all non-winged animals, we will become extinct. No need to be concerned about his however, we've developed our own ability to fly. I sometimes wonder of all the species in existence, man is the only one that seems to have successfully met all the requirements of natural selection, chance, and evolution to be where we are today, typing madly on a keyboard and looking as the words move along in sequence and grow along my monitor. marvelous indeed.

Now, as for Maury's parakeet; an impressive evolutionary progression might be the development of a key-like projection on it's left wing enabling it to free itself from the oppressive cage. I suppose in a hundred million years perhaps Polly will be more fortunate.
ebuddy
     
spiky_dog
Mac Elite
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Plainview, NY
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 06:40 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
Ironically, still all classified as cichlid fishes after all these thousands of years. Why? Because their genomes are virtually identical. This is variance using data already available. No new data was created. No new organs were created. Existing genes may shuffle to allow for environmental change, no new genes were created nor can they be...
this is my last "contribution" to this thread, as i am repeating myself, in response to your repetition.

anyway, as for new genes being created, see the previously mentioned examples of bcr-abl, and novel somatic hypermutation in the variable region of b-cell genomes. and, about the "genomes [being] virtually identical", please note that one widely bandied-about figure is that chimps' and humans' genomes are 98% identical. what this signifies is that small differences (that 2%) along with other factors not considered* are very influential in ways that a cynical analysis such as ebuddy's would ignore.

(* these other factors including but not limited to epigenetic control, the mostly unknown yet significant influence of non-coding regions, gene amplification, novel genes created through mutation, recombination, or other pathways)
     
deej5871
Senior User
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Metamora, OH
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 20, 2004, 10:48 PM
 
Originally posted by spiky_dog:
good, i'm glad that it struck a nerve - perhaps it will later provoke some sort of reaction from your central nervous system as well.
Sure, poke fun at the idiom I used, that really makes you sound like you have a real response in your post.

Originally posted by mikellanes:
Hey I can see a pencil fall to the ground but that is microgravity. But how do we know gravity really keeps all those solar systems in place? Macrogravity is science fiction. It is faith and a religion. The religion of macrogravity.
Ahh, but we don't know everything about gravity. I refer you to this site (a work in progress, but it has references) which talks about how certain things don't conform to our formulas of gravity. Also, besides what is mentioned at the site, I remember something I read about some time ago about scientists not being able to find something in space using current formulas. SO, "macrogravity", as you call it, doesn't work in all cases.

Seconds are real. I experience seconds every day. It's obvious they exist and it would be stupid to deny them.
But millennia? Do you know anyone who's observed a complete millennium?
Exactly: millennia can't exist - that's just crazy talk.
I really don't think that's a good analogy. Seconds eventually do become millennia, when they are added up. However, they do not become a millennia themselves, like arguing an ape ancestor suddenly turns into a human (although, ape ancestors added up do not become humans like seconds to millennia, but that's just another reason why I dislike the analogy).

Originally posted by mikellanes:
That picture is an illustration. Two remarks. First, "considered variance in modern humans" by whom? A casual observer with no background in comparative morphology? That's not real convincing. The folks who spend their lives studing these things have a pretty good handle on the range of variability of the various traits, and are wholly aware of the problems that can raise. They're not stupid or uninformed. They actually have data -- measured properties with calculated variances -- for the traits of interest.
The actual article on that is here. They have most of the who's about the analysis of the skulls.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q..._uids=10634689
Adult mandibles of 317 modern humans and 91 great apes were selected that showed no pathology. Adult mandibles of Pan troglodytes troglodytes, Pongo pygmaeus pygmaeus and Gorilla gorilla gorilla and from 2 modern human populations (Zulu and Europeans from Spitalfields) were reliably sexed. Thirteen measurements were defined and included mandibular height, length and breadth in representative positions. Univariate statistical techniques and multivariate (principal component analysis and discriminant analysis) statistical techniques were used to investigate interspecific variability and sexual dimorphism in human and great ape mandibles, and intraspecific variability among the modern human mandibles. Analysis of interspecific differences revealed some pairs of variables with a tight linear relationship and others where Homo and the great apes pulled apart from one another due to shape differences. Homo and Pan are least sexually dimorphic in the mandible, Pan less so than Homo sapiens, but both the magnitude of sexual dimorphism and the distribution of sexually dimorphic measurements varied both among and between modern humans and great apes. Intraspecific variation among the 10 populations of modern humans was less than that generally reported in studies of crania (74.3% of mandibles were correctly classified into 1 of 10 populations using discriminant functions based on 13 variables as compared with 93% of crania from 17 populations based on 70 variables in one extensive study of crania). A subrecent European population (Poundbury) emerged as more different from a recent European population (Spitalfields) than other more diverse modern populations were from each other, suggesting considerable morphological plasticity in the mandible through time. This study forms a sound basis on which to explore mandibular variation in Neanderthals, early Homo sapiens and other more ancient fossil hominids.
Care to translate? I actually read the whole thing and I only have a very slight understanding of what it says (you would think a scientist would know how to separate things into paragraphs...): From the first sentence where they say "no pathology" I assume they mean they took these from different areas, like they don't have two skulls from Native Americans because they would have the same features anyway, but how do I know exactly what they mean by "no pathology"? And when they talk about "intraspecific variation" in humans, they say they couldn't always classify them correctly, which I interpret as sometimes they thought that a human skull was an ape skull (because of the intraspefic variation), meaning an incorrect classification.

How would you go about learning about the range of variation in, say, Homo sapiens skulls? How do you think I found that example? Are there ways of finding that kind of information on one's own? I don't begrudge the time spent looking stuff up for users, but a goal of doing so is to encourage people to find stuff on their own, to use the enormous resources available now. Back when I took physical anthropology there were no such resources; now they're accessible to anyone with a computer and a link to the Web.
I don't mind when I look up documents for you either; but that's because they support my ideas. Do you often just go looking up stuff that tries to prove evolution wrong, and enjoy it?
     
私
Junior Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: ??
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2004, 12:59 AM
 
Originally posted by spiky_dog:
this is my last "contribution" to this thread, as i am repeating myself, in response to your repetition.

anyway, as for new genes being created, see the previously mentioned examples of bcr-abl, and novel somatic hypermutation in the variable region of b-cell genomes. and, about the "genomes [being] virtually identical", please note that one widely bandied-about figure is that chimps' and humans' genomes are 98% identical. what this signifies is that small differences (that 2%) along with other factors not considered* are very influential in ways that a cynical analysis such as ebuddy's would ignore.

(* these other factors including but not limited to epigenetic control, the mostly unknown yet significant influence of non-coding regions, gene amplification, novel genes created through mutation, recombination, or other pathways)
It's probably also worth noting for the sake of emphasis, that the genome of humans and the genome of yeast are 95% identical. I'd say the effects of that 5% are vastly greater than the effects of the 2% difference between humans and chimps.

It makes sense that humans and chimps would have very similar DNA. We look a lot like chimps on the outside, so it's reasonable that we look a lot like chimps on the inside too. However we do not look anything like yeast on the outside, so why do we look so much like yeast on the inside? Where did this similarity in design between to completely different species come from if not evolution from a common ancestor?

     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2004, 10:52 AM
 
Look spikey_dog, I understand your frustration. Where we differ is on where evolution stops. I believe it stops at a point, you believe it can continue on and create wholly new species. i.e. the difference between the simplest cell and us. I believe that there are vast differences between humans and even the most intelligent animal. I have a problem with matter breaking down and increasing in complexity. I have a problem with the supposition that new genomes can be created. Then created again, and again, and then again in the uncontrollable environment of nature. And at the end of the day, this still does not explain the first cell becoming all of what we know. I read the debates within the scientific community and find it's not as cut and dry as you'd like to see it. It's not as cut and dry as many would like to see it and unfortunately most go along because they won't do the exhaustive research necessary to establish the truth for themselves. You believe with enough time all this becomes possible. I don't agree that we've been given enough time for all this to be possible. In many ways my conclusions support my dogma I'll openly admit. I am cynical when it comes to evolution because I know that there is still much to be learned and observed. I'm not saying our knowledge has no merit, I'm saying it's to be questioned with the same level of scrutiny we would apply to any other debateable subject matter. I'd also like to say that the more I've learned here, the more I'm personally convinced of a designer. The fact that there is little difference in genomes overall does not mean to me a like-ancestor, it means to me a like-designer.
ebuddy
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2004, 11:54 AM
 
I have a question for creationists: If evolution is such a weakly-supported theory, then why is it so universally supported by people in the life sciences and earth sciences? What's going on? Why is there such a disconnect between the American population (and it's really only the US from what I can tell) and the scientists?

Let me give you an example. My brother-in-law is a botanist. He does classification stuff - putting new plants into the proper groupings. They do a lot of DNA testing and that kind of thing.

Everything he does is guided by the principles of evolution. When they think in those terms, everything fits together. Everything makes sense. All of the fossils make sense. All of the different species and their relations fit together. If different species of plants didn't form through evolution, nothing in his field would make sense anymore.

Now, he's not part of a left-wing conspiracy, or a god-hating elite. He's just some guy who liked plants and decided to get a PhD in them. And he's no dupe - he's one of the most knowledgeable people in the world in his particular field.

It just seems to me that the only way evolution could be false is if the people who study all these fields - biology, botany, geology, all of the other life sciences and earth sciences - either 1) aren't very well-informed about their fields or 2) are intentionally trying to con the rest of the population. Maybe there's another option that I'm missing. But there must be some explanation why the people who are less knowledgeable understand this science better than the more knowledgeable people who actually study these fields.
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 21, 2004, 07:10 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
I read the debates within the scientific community and find it's not as cut and dry as you'd like to see it.[/B]
Those are the debates, if you worked in the scientific community you would see LITTLE debate goes on, not saying debate isn't warranted, but if you only looked at the apple support message boards you would say there is little evidence that Macs are good machines as most have problems, if you worked inside apple you would see a different picture.


It's not as cut and dry as many would like to see it and unfortunately most go along because they won't do the exhaustive research necessary to establish the truth for themselves.
Same for any field, but again, I would argue if you worked with most biological scientists who do this day in an say out you would see the same thinking over and over, see BRussels post for a specific example.

You believe with enough time all this becomes possible. I don't agree that we've been given enough time for all this to be possible.
Do you not think 4.5 billion years is enough time? Organisms duplicate in as little as 10 seconds (viruses are some of the fastest)

OR are you going on your Young Earth thought? I did read that at the beginning of this thread, and while I wont get in to your arguments which are easily debunked, I will say that there is insurmountable evidence of the age of the earth, between almost every field of study there is almost 100% agreement on this. Again, I am sure you can find many debates on this, but even many religions have gone from young earth to old earth because the evidence is insurmountable.

Unless you believe God created the earth in an old state for some odd reason, Remember God is not the author of confusion?

In many ways my conclusions support my dogma I'll openly admit.
Surely you jest?

I'm saying it's to be questioned with the same level of scrutiny we would apply to any other debateable subject matter.
I am sure we all agree on that.

I'd also like to say that the more I've learned here, the more I'm personally convinced of a designer.
Similarly I have been led to the exact opposite over the last 30 years...

The fact that there is little difference in genomes overall does not mean to me a like-ancestor, it means to me a like-designer.
Why such poor a design then? We can already design and repair better organs and we are brand new at this!

The urethra? Do you know 50% of men will be affected by this? Tell me why such a bad design? Tell me If you have need for prostate surgery will you just stay home and pray for god to fix it? After-all it was his design why should we tamper with it?

The Spine, this is such a poor design that 80% of people will be affected with back pain, but hey don't take medication or get adjustments this is how a perfect God created and designed it to function, or are we to be couch potatoes and never lift over 25lbs.

The Knee? well, lets just ask any runner, basketball player, or even morris dancer about this little gem.

The Jaw, how about the fact it is usually too small for the number of teeth requiring most to have impacted wisdom teeth to be removed before deformities of the jaw.

What about all the extra genes? Birds do not have teeth. But birds have genes, normally non-functioning, for making teeth.

Horses have a single toe on each leg. But horses have genes, normally non-functioning, for extra toes.

What are genes for making these things doing in creatures that don't need them, don't normally have them? Poor design or left overs from evolution?

Ostriches, which are not known for their flying abilities, have hollow bones. They share this feature with flighted birds (except in their legs, where strength is now a survival attribute that natural selection can operate upon). Being ground-based, such weight-reduction does not seem appropriate... but if this is a useful feature, why do other land animals not have it?

DNA has a remarkable copying fidelity... yet mutations -- errors -- are far from rare. If the Good Lord wanted all his creations to be separate, immutable kinds, all he had to do was make the copying mechanism flawless. Meiotic recombination and outcrossing (sex) would still make different individuals. Hey presto -- no flaws. But the system is flawed... so the designer must... want flaws?

Since humans (especially women) generally have little body hair, it is pointless having the same system of muscles (the arrectores pilorum) and sympathetic nerves which in most mammals raises the hairs in response cold or fear. Nevertheless, we get goose bumps (cutis anserina). What's more, if our skin is meant to be mostly bare, why do we have the tiny ineffectual hairs (and separate muscles and nerves for them) at all?

The grasping reflex in human babies would only seem to make sense if we used to have rather more body hair, like other primates. It appears a rather pointless design otherwise.

Sexual reproduction is not anywhere near '100%': most copulation is inefficient and fails to produce viable offspring. Why are millions of sperm required? Good design, or merely adaptive?

Every single thing I see in nature points to evolution, either that or a piss poor designer who left a ****-load of useless crap in his designs.
"To sin by silence when they should protest makes cowards of men."
- A Lincoln
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2004, 11:45 AM
 
I have a question for creationists: If evolution is such a weakly-supported theory, then why is it so universally supported by people in the life sciences and earth sciences? What's going on? Why is there such a disconnect between the American population (and it's really only the US from what I can tell) and the scientists?
This is an excellent question BRussell. There is overwhelming evidence to support adaptive evolution. In fact, even Creationists will tell you that evolution was absolutely necessary to propogate a species after the flood. It must be designed with the ability to adapt. I believe this adaptation is limited by encoding in nucleic acids that determine the 'kind' or species and that wholly new organs and organisms are not plausible. This to me is the difference between micro (observed evolution) and macro (unobserved evolution). In my view, we are mistakenly sold both in one package. In short (according to TalkOrgins.org FAQ) there are considerable debates within the biological community (8 to be specific) regarding speciation alone. Why would most bother? Answer; most don't. I dare say your brother-in-law is not so concerned with macro since his work includes species of foliage that show micro. I dare say he's not as concerned about the first cell ever created as he is the cells within the organisms he gets paid to research. I dare say his field of study does not require he question evolution, but work within guidelines set by those before him. In order for a scientist to conduct his work he must use known measurements. In other words, a carpenter may disagree with our system of measurement in the US. He may have a problem with a unit; 'inch' however, he'll find it difficult to work within the guidelines set before him unless he accepts the premise. He becomes less concerned about the inch and more concerned about success in carpentry. It may help you to know that there are indeed intelligent people on both sides of the issue in fairness; Dr. Steve Austin, Chairman of the Geology Department at the Institute for Creation Research, CA; Dr. John Baumgardner, Geophysicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, NM; Dr. Eugene Chaffin, Physics Professor at Bluefield College, VA and Editor of the Creation Research Society Quarterly; Dr. Donald DeYoung, Physics Professor at Grace College, IN; Dr. Russell Humphreys, Physicist at Sandia National Laboratory, NM; and Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist with the Creation Science Foundation in Australia and Editor of the Creation Ex Nihilo Technical Journal. Professors all from the fields Geology/Geophysics and Physics/Astronomy and there are many scientists from the field of Biology as well. BUT THESE ARE MOSTLY CREATIONISTS!!! It may help you to know that most 'evolutionists' are atheists and secular humanists and this alone does not hinder nor augment credibility in my view. They all contribute to science in their way. The people named above are not idiots or quacks no matter how likely it is for them to be painted as such because of how and where they've built their careers. You'll notice the top crusaders from each field of Evolution and Creation have very much in common in that they are idealogues at best. If this stuff interests you, keep a watchful eye. I see evolution becoming more debateable every year.

To touch on Mikellanes' point, I believe the examples of imperfection you cite are examples of what happens to matter as it evolves. It degrades. I believe it's possible within our nature to have something begin perfect and decline from there.
ebuddy
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2004, 12:26 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
To touch on Mikellanes' point, I believe the examples of imperfection you cite are examples of what happens to matter as it evolves. It degrades. I believe it's possible within our nature to have something begin perfect and decline from there.
A)Begin perfect. B)Degrade from there.

B does not agree with A, your argument is flawed, perfect is perfect.

If you say good created us perfect and we degraded, I would argue perfect would be perfect with no mutations or degradations possible.

If you say we were created better than we are it makes no sense, why make us better only to degrade latter, surely a God would know the degradation that would occur later on.

If you are saying our urethra used to follow another pass, I would say that is one hell of a change without macro evolution.

I think you are doing "thought acrobatics" to somehow fit this in with your theories.
( Last edited by mikellanes; Nov 22, 2004 at 12:36 PM. )
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2004, 12:42 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
I dare say he's not as concerned about the first cell ever created as he is the cells within the organisms he gets paid to research. I dare say his field of study does not require he question evolution

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION, HAVE YOU NOT READ UP ON THE THEORY AT ALL? Evolution only deals with the change in a organism over time.

I have said this several times, seems to me the only ones who think evolution proposed where the first cells came from are you creationists. why can you not comprehend this?

The truth or falsity of any theory of abiogenesis wouldn't affect evolution in the least.
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2004, 09:11 PM
 
I hope the creationists don't get their way. If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.
     
SimpleLife
Mac Elite
Join Date: Nov 2004
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 22, 2004, 09:27 PM
 
Originally posted by BRussell:
I hope the creationists don't get their way. If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.
I remember one of my teachers explainng an experiment done over many generations of lab rats.

30% were left-handed, 70 %were lefthanded.

They got the lefthanded to breed amongts themselves and...

4 generations later, the proportion got back to the same.

Now if Creationists breed amongts themselves, we should see a return to some form of balance, whatever that is.

Note: I mean nothing personal towards any rats of any color or origins in comparing any of them to Humans.
     
vmpaul
Professional Poster
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: always on the sunny side
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2004, 12:54 AM
 
If anybody's interested there was good discussion last week on NPR's Science Friday discussing this very issue of Evolution and Intelligent Design. A thoughtful discussion which shouldn't ruffle too many feathers.

Here's the link to the archive.

One point I've never heard anybody bring up before was the frustration expressed by a science teacher regarding what to teach if a Creationist curriculum was predominate in the science classroom. What do you teach students? Just shrug your shoulders and say somebody/something else was responsible? How is that a thorough science education? I'm paraphrasing but that was the gist of his reaction. I think it highlights another problem with the Creationist philosophy. It's not really a proper field of science to study.

Anyway, for those of you who participated in this thread, the program is worth a listen.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2004, 11:13 AM
 
originally posted by my science-crusader friend mikellanes; THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EVOLUTION, HAVE YOU NOT READ UP ON THE THEORY AT ALL? Evolution only deals with the change in a organism over time.
I thought we were talking origins. You misread my reply to BRussell. I mentioned as a botanist, his brother-in-law is likely not concerned with the first cell. I suppose I could've continued on to include, neither is mikellanes nor evolution? I apologize.
I think you are doing "thought acrobatics" to somehow fit this in with your theories.
But I've given you no theories that would require me to 'fit' anything. Are you jumping on conjecture and speculation again? I thought we put an agreed moratorium on this behavior.
If you say good created us perfect and we degraded, I would argue perfect would be perfect with no mutations or degradations possible.
You may argue that, but I thought we agreed that mutations exist right? We see examples of good DNA gone bad constantly no? So, is it possible for something to start off better than it was before? This is in fact the case with what we can test, observe, and conclude. Matter breaks down and DECREASES in complexity. If you go back far enough is it even possible that something was missing any mutation at all? We would disagree on what perfect is. I dare say your 'theories' depend on a more resiliant cellular attribute (perfection) than what you believe I've proposed. That said, it is disingenuous to claim evolution has nothing to do with origins. The entire purpose is to learn more of our origins void of "The Bible told me so" argument right?

There are evolutionary explanations on the table regarding the first cell. Anything from lightening striking a primordial soup to the propogation of life through meteors coming from Mars, but it gets even more compelling than that. In order for what you believe to be the propogation of species, there needs to be an environment that would allow this to occur. Knowing what we do of our oxygen-rich environment and why "reducing" atmosphere is not plausible it is reasonable to conclude we did not have an environment suitable for the type of propogation you cite. We may disagree on this I'm sure.

The fossil record has only helped establish that macro-evolution is not observed. Biological research has only helped establish that macro-evolution is not observed and that micro-evolution is prevalent. I'm given study after study that establishes the existance of micro-evolution yet none, absolutely none establish 'new' genomes or tissues. Look at the studies you cite before you post them. I'm told my arguments are invalid unless I can show proof of a mechanism that would hinder micro from becoming macro yet there is no proof of macro. This is a "redirect" in argument and only establishes for me a desire to misdirect the argument away from the falsehoods of macro-evolution. Apparently now you need proof that a process doesn't exist in order to be scientific regardless of whether or not there's proof it existed in the first place. This sounds suspiciously similar to the Creationist argument; "Prove to me God doesn't exist." I'm told; "how can all these scientists be wrong?" I might remind you these are the same "anything, but the Bible" folks that believed the earth was flat or that blood-letting could ease diarrhea. These are the same scientists that still cite embryological recapitulation as evidence for evolution. All I can say is I hope they're not still using my tax dollars on research to find gills on mammalian embryos...they won't find any, but this hasn't stopped them in asserting this as proof of some type of aquatic ancestory. To summarize popular scientific thought on the matter; "Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
One point I've never heard anybody bring up before was the frustration expressed by a science teacher regarding what to teach if a Creationist curriculum was predominate in the science classroom. What do you teach students? Just shrug your shoulders and say somebody/something else was responsible? How is that a thorough science education?
What then is the alternative? Should we teach something as fact when it clearly is not proved to be so?
It has been proposed that we can use Evolution not as a science, but as a lesson in critical thinking. Considering the amount of time a public school system can spend on Evolution, we cannot get into too much detail anyway. Why not clearly separate the observed (micro) from the unobserved (macro) evolution and simply not discuss origins in the first place? Why not teach only that which we know and not what is supposed of it. Again, there's an insistance on teaching macro w/ micro and this is the problem, but if you must...We can use Evolution in the classroom to teach critical thinking, we can touch on the basis of evolution, including it's flaws and let the children draw a conclusion. This is the best way to handle theory for scientists, why not young budding scientists? In other words, evolution (as a whole) is currently being taught as fact when there are simply too many problems with it to be taught as such. I don't have a problem teaching the theory as long as it's taught as such. You don't need to teach Creation. A good, knowledgeable Christian parent should not rely on a public school system to teach orgins. Origins should be taught in accordance with critical thinking or not at all, same with Creation, at least in a public system.
ebuddy
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2004, 03:38 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
In short (according to TalkOrgins.org FAQ) there are considerable debates within the biological community (8 to be specific) regarding speciation alone. Why would most bother? Answer; most don't. I dare say your brother-in-law is not so concerned with macro since his work includes species of foliage that show micro. I dare say he's not as concerned about the first cell ever created as he is the cells within the organisms he gets paid to research. I dare say his field of study does not require he question evolution, but work within guidelines set by those before him.
That seems to be a variation of my explanation #1 above, that the scientists just aren't very smart, but you're framing it more as being kind of lazy. In any case, you're not saying they're intentionally misleading us, so that's good.

But I disagree that my bro's work doesn't require him to question assumptions. That's exactly what they do. Can you imagine if someone could scientifically disprove evolution? They would win a Nobel prize. It would be like Einstein overturning Newton. Einstein wasn't disregarded or rejected; he was hailed as the genius of the 20th century. All of the heroes of science have overturned prior theories - that's what it's all about. They question assumptions.

SJ Gould made his career in part by questioning one of the basic assumptions of evolution, that it is always slow and steady. He's recognized as one of the leading experts in evolution and related issues today. Yet he questioned basic assumptions.

My point is that to the extent there are flaws or holes in the theory of evolution, and there certainly are, like Gould's punctuated equilibrium issue, it's the scientists in the relevant fields that would be the first to look for them and find them. And I still maintain that to think otherwise is to think there's either some kind of "moon-landing" type conspiracy going on, or that the folks who study biology and geology and all the relevant fields just aren't as knowledgeable as some folks on the internets.
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 23, 2004, 07:38 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
There are evolutionary explanations on the table regarding the first cell. Anything from lightening striking a primordial soup to the propogation of life through meteors coming from Mars, but it gets even more compelling than that. In order for what you believe to be the propogation of species, there needs to be an environment that would allow this to occur. Knowing what we do of our oxygen-rich environment and why "reducing" atmosphere is not plausible it is reasonable to conclude we did not have an environment suitable for the type of propogation you cite. We may disagree on this I'm sure.

The prebiotic environment was far from oxygen rich.

Oxygen is an immensely corrosive gas, for it reacts with most everything and has a tendancy to rip molecules apart. This is bad for any important structures, of course. Oxygen will eat through metal at an impressive rate, and it also destroys genetic material, which is why all living things have self repair mechanisms to limit this damage as much as possible.

Interestingly enough, the 21% of oxygen in our atmosphere is the result of pollution. Those early photosynthesis-based critters kept on eating up all of the carbon dixoide and spitting out the oxygen. Eventually this oxygen built up and began to poison the planet, which then forced live to adapt to the new environment.

The fossil record has only helped establish that macro-evolution is not observed.
This is the silliest thing I've heard this far.

Biological research has only helped establish that macro-evolution is not observed and that micro-evolution is prevalent.
Only if you define micro-evolution as "Evolution biologists can observe". You don't realize how silly you sound.

I'm given study after study that establishes the existance of micro-evolution yet none, absolutely none establish 'new' genomes or tissues.
That's because you don't understand. You can't expect anything large to happen over-night. What do you mean with "new genomes"?


Look at the studies you cite before you post them. I'm told my arguments are invalid unless I can show proof of a mechanism that would hinder micro from becoming macro yet there is no proof of macro.
And yet we posted lots of studies observing macro-evolution.

This is a "redirect" in argument and only establishes for me a desire to misdirect the argument away from the falsehoods of macro-evolution.
Can you define macro-evolution for us so we know what you're talking about?

Apparently now you need proof that a process doesn't exist in order to be scientific regardless of whether or not there's proof it existed in the first place. This sounds suspiciously similar to the Creationist argument; "Prove to me God doesn't exist." I'm told; "how can all these scientists be wrong?" I might remind you these are the same "anything, but the Bible" folks that believed the earth was flat or that blood-letting could ease diarrhea.
Micro-evolution and macro-evolution is observed. Beneficial mutations observed. The effects of natural selection are observed. There's montains of evidence for common descent, so much that it's considered fact. Evolution of complex mechanisms such as metabolism in bacterias has been "redone" in laboratories, just to pick one example. Can you tell me how this is similar to the Creationists arguments?


These are the same scientists that still cite embryological recapitulation as evidence for evolution. All I can say is I hope they're not still using my tax dollars on research to find gills on mammalian embryos...they won't find any, but this hasn't stopped them in asserting this as proof of some type of aquatic ancestory.
Mammalian embryos have gill slits. It's evidence for aquatic ancestory, yes.

To summarize popular scientific thought on the matter; [b]"Evolution is a theory universally accepted not because it can be proved to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible."
No, the fact that YOU don't understand the evidence or the theory doesn't mean it's false.
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2004, 12:24 AM
 
I hope I'm not stating anything too complicated for you Mikellanes. You can suggest what I'm saying is silly, but it's a shared and increasingly popular line of questioning. It may also behoove you for a moment to realize that man has not attained all the answers. Many of the, what you might call 'biggies' have been sketchy at best.
Micro-evolution and macro-evolution is observed.
Wrong. adaptation yes. Complete transformation? No.
Beneficial mutations observed.
I'll give you a hesitant; "mmm kinda" on that one.
The effects of natural selection are observed.
I'll give you this one with less hesitancy; I like large breasted women with nice hips.
There's montains of evidence for common descent,
There's mountains of evidence for common design, and quite complex I might add.
so much that it's considered fact.
Are you saying gravity is still a theory?
Evolution of complex mechanisms such as metabolism in bacterias has been "redone" in laboratories
What was the new bacteria they created again? I'm not saying 'copying' or 'redoing' is not impressive, it certainly is.
just to pick one example. Can you tell me how this is similar to the Creationists arguments?
Pick just about every view you hold dear on this matter, reverse it. That's the extent of the Creationist's arguments with you.
Mammalian embryos have gill slits. It's evidence for aquatic ancestory, yes.
No, but this might be the best readin' yet.
ebuddy
     
Dale Sorel
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: With my kitties!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2004, 03:58 PM
 
By far, the most ignorant poll I've seen on this board, ever
     
BRussell
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: The Rockies
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 24, 2004, 04:02 PM
 
Originally posted by Dale Sorel:
By far, the most ignorant poll I've seen on this board, ever
Why is it a bad poll? You could include an option for "God started evolution a couple billion years ago" or something like that, but presumably those people would just agree with the "evolution" option. Also remember that almost half of Americans agree with the creationism poll option presented here.
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2004, 10:24 AM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
You can suggest what I'm saying is silly, but it's a shared and increasingly popular line of questioning.
Not among people actually working with evolution.


Wrong. adaptation yes. Complete transformation? No.
Define where's the line between "adaption" and "complete transformation".

Complete transformations takes a LOOOONG time. Many generations. What we can observe is still macro-evolution on the scale we can expect to observe it.

It's clear that on the Hawaiian islands, as the Hawaiian Silversword Alliance amply demonstrates. In this case, weedy little daisy-like plants from the Pacific coast that looked something like this:



reached the Hawaiian Islands and very quickly evolved into great big not-so-daisy-like things like this:



Not bad for "microevolution", eh? So at what point does it become "macroevolution"?

I'll give you a hesitant; "mmm kinda" on that one.
I'll give you this one with less hesitancy; I like large breasted women with nice hips.
There's mountains of evidence for common design, and quite complex I might add.
Forgive me for asking, but could you possibly provide some of this "mountain of evidence for common design" please? We seem to be able to find plenty of examples of bad design, and no small number of examples where said design is to imply outright cruelty in the designer...including the very fact that we breathe oxygen.

How is the Vitamin C pseudogene evidence for common design?

Humans do not have the capability to synthesize ascorbic acid (otherwise known as Vitamin C), and the unfortunate consequence can be the nutritional deficiency called scurvy. However, the predicted ancestors of humans had this function (as do most other animals except primates and guinea pigs). Therefore, we predict that humans, other primates, and guinea pigs should carry evidence of this lost function as a molecular vestigial character.

If common design implies a common designer, what are we to make of the wide range of organisms that do the same thing with different designs? Multiple designers?


Are you saying gravity is still a theory?
I thought we already went through this?

Still a theory? A theory doesn't transform into anything. It's the highest possible level of certainty an explanation can get.

We are fairly comfortable with the existence of gravity - we see it's effects all the time. We are even passably good at predicting and calculating it's effects...though there have still been occasional discoveries made recently. The part that's still a theory is HOW gravity is "created", and all the arcane things it can do to the cosmos. Black holes, gravity's extreme children, weren't even really accepted until as recently as the last decade. There are still problems, such as a lack of connection between gravitation and the other forces (strong and weak atomic give the biggest fits, as I understand it); the current theory of gravitation is just the best one we have to explain the facts, and has room for modification/expansion. I'm sure you can see the parallels...

What was the new bacteria they created again? I'm not saying 'copying' or 'redoing' is not impressive, it certainly is.
Lets see...

Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins have created bacteria that selectively target large advanced tumors in mice.
http://www.upwardquest.com/01-good-b...ll-cancer.html

New bacteria may help decaffeinate coffee
http://www.scienceblog.com/community...ticle&sid=4336

I can go on?

Pick just about every view you hold dear on this matter, reverse it. That's the extent of the Creationist's arguments with you.
And thus they are paddling against an increasingly growing flood of evidence.

No, but this might be the best readin' yet.
Technically, They have pharyngeal pouches. Pharyngeal pouches develop in both fish and mammal embryos... but in fish they go on to become gills, while in mammals they become, er... something else I'm too lazy to look up. Which ain't, however, gills.

So the question would be, why (other than due to modification during development of pre-existing structures, ie evolution) do two distinct 'kinds' form structures that eventually become radically different final things?
     
ebuddy
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Nov 25, 2004, 01:57 PM
 
Not among people actually working with evolution.
No, in fact you're quite right. Those working with evolution you'd expect to find evolution. I'm talking about those working with physics, biology, geology, and archeology.
mikellanes posted various impressive pictures of plants of the silversword alliance.
A. Why are they classified as the same species mikellanes?
Don't bother. The answer is while they look very different they are according to the study;exceedingly closely related as judged by data from biosystematics and molecular studies.
B. Why do you insist plant variation and speciation as being anything similar to mammal speciation and variation? A conclusion of the extensive research of the silversword alliance includes this statement; "Complete genome sequences from representatives of all three domains of life have enabled a more comprehensive view of evolutionary relationships among organisms. This task has turned out to be anything but straightforward. Incongruities can be seen throughout the phylogenetic tree when single protein phylogenies are examined. It has become clear that gene evolution does not equal species evolution." Creationists use examples like these to illustrate how rapid adaptive evolution can account for the various species having developed from ancestors of Noah's Ark. Are they to thank you for the support? Also, this accounts for micro-evolution in a very isolated area. The species exhibit an extraordinary range of anatomical, morphological, and ecological adaptations in a very isolated area. I thought we agreed that adaptational, micro-evolution has been observed. I believe they 'adapted', you believe over time they can continue to adapt to something other than a plant perhaps? You may say, they don't need to become anything other than a plant. I might say; but unless the environment does not require them to 'move' (which I would suggest our environment always has required), you'd expect them to develop mobility at some point. Truth be told, I can't prove a mechanism in place to stop adaptation from creating entirely new species, but science cannot prove the ability for one species to become an entirely new species for reasons we've already discussed. I'm skeptical based on what I know of the odds and likelihood of those plants to be anything other than 'exceedingly similar' plants. You can say this is proposterous, but it's these arguments that drive research and discovery. It's not anti-science as you seem to want it tagged, it is skepticism. You cannot say that skepticism is counter-productive to research and discovery.

We seem to be able to find plenty of examples of bad design
We would disagree on this. I believe what you are calling 'bad design' is nothing more than the effect of entropy on matter.
and no small number of examples where said design is to imply outright cruelty in the designer...including the very fact that we breathe oxygen.
cruelty would be your sudden inability to breathe oxygen my friend. For the sake of argument however, 'design' could also be viewed as extremely benevolent in that the adaptive examples you cite illustrate designed resiliance to environmental adversity.
Sidney Kimmel Comprehensive Cancer Center at Johns Hopkins have created bacteria that selectively target large advanced tumors in mice.
http://www.upwardquest.com/01-good-...ill-cancer.html
New bacteria may help decaffeinate coffee
http://www.scienceblog.com/communit...le&sid=4336
I can go on?
Both of these examples establish my point better than any other portion of this discussion yet. I've already agreed that our abilities in biology are fascinating, why do you insist on bloating what isn't into what is??? We've created absolutely nothing new in your first example. Did you read the article you posted or are you just madly posting anything that would support your dogma? Here's the truth my friend;
The scientists systematically screened numerous bacterial species to find one that would thrive in an oxygen-poor environment and, at the same time, destroy surrounding tumor cells. They settled on one spore-forming bacterial species, called Clostridium novyi (C.novyi). C.novyi is normally found in soil and dust and contains a toxin that can cause lethal side effects in animals. They genetically modified the bacteria to remove the toxin gene to make them harmless to normal animals. Then, they injected spores of these bacteria and conventional chemotherapeutic agents into mice with large tumors composed of transplanted human colon cancer cells.
What did they create again?
(For those that voted 'God so created...' I'll make it a little simpler). They created nothing. They took bacteria commonly found in dust and dirt that thrive in oxygen-poor environments, and removed it's toxic gene. This does not stop some from saying; "they created". If you look more closely, you'll find this certainly has nothing to do with evolution.
The second case you cite regarding 'new bacteria for decaffeinating coffee' is not actually presented that way by the ones who offered the article;
"Emory chemists develop bacteria that may help decaffeinate coffee"
To quickly summarize key points of the article;
"His research team is interested in making bacteria synthesize molecules that they would otherwise not make on their own, resulting in molecules that may someday benefit humans.
Remember, according to the article Mikellanes posted they haven't yet mentioned having created any bacteria. What they mean to say is; "They know that existing bacteria synthesizes molecules for it's own benefit. They're interested in manipulating this bacteria to synthesize other molecules."
I'm interested in $150.00 hover-crafts.
Then they go on to say that a compelling connection has been made; the Emory researchers have coupled the life of a bacterium to the presence of theophylline, a compound that is used to treat asthma, and is produced by the breakdown of caffeine in both coffee and tea plants.
Then they say; ''We know that there is an enzyme that breaks caffeine down into theophylline, but we don't know much about it,''
They've created absolutely nothing and in fact, have so far gotten nowhere yet this doesn't stop mikellanes from posting it as "new bacteria having been created" furthermore, has even less to do with evolution in nature.
Technically, They have pharyngeal pouches. Pharyngeal pouches develop in both fish and mammal embryos[
How about folds. I mean really, that's what they are quite simply, folds. In the human for example these develop into the middle ear canal, parathyroid, and thymus glands respectively crudely among other completely non-respiratory organs. A potter would start at his wheel with a lump of clay. Yet from that lump that starts out the same, we can have pots and bowls. Pots and bowls serve completely different functions in society and they become disinctly different. We could say that the pot came from the bowl, I believe we might also say that both came from the potter using the same resources.
ebuddy
     
mikellanes
Mac Elite
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Right Here.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2004, 04:17 PM
 
Originally posted by ebuddy:
No, in fact you're quite right. Those working with evolution you'd expect to find evolution. I'm talking about those working with physics, biology, geology, and archeology.
And so I am, evolution plays a major party in biology, geology, and yes even archeology.

A. Why are they classified as the same species mikellanes?
Don't bother. The answer is while they look very different they are according to the study;exceedingly closely related as judged by data from biosystematics and molecular studies.
Why is anything classified as the same species? You have yet to show me a dividing line as I have asked numerous times, this is why I have dropped from this thread and only now reply that I have an abundance of time on my hands... This is really going nowhere.

We would disagree on this. I believe what you are calling 'bad design' is nothing more than the effect of entropy on matter.
Than I will clarify and call entropy BAD DESIGN, tell me if Adam and Eve didn't eat of the fruit they were supposed to live forever correct? How would this even be possible?

cruelty would be your sudden inability to breathe oxygen my friend. For the sake of argument however, 'design' could also be viewed as extremely benevolent in that the adaptive examples you cite illustrate designed resiliance to environmental adversity.
Again, ID suggests an Intelligent designer, adaptiveness does not, it suggests no design hence the need for adaption.

Both of these examples establish my point better than any other portion of this discussion yet. I've already agreed that our abilities in biology are fascinating, why do you insist on bloating what isn't into what is??? We've created absolutely nothing new in your first example.
Was there a bacteria exactly as we have now before the change was made? NO, it was created, made, brought in to existence, whatever word you would like to use, I prefer created, they changed the genes and created a new bacteria, I admit the one case was quickly posted and I apologize for that one.

We could say that the pot came from the bowl, I believe we might also say that both came from the potter using the same resources.
We could say that or we could say the bowl evolved to bigger and better things.
We know that organisms already use the same resources to evolve, I don't quite see your point here.
     
NYCFarmboy
Mac Elite
Join Date: Jan 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Dec 7, 2004, 07:42 PM
 
Originally posted by chris v:
NYCFarmboy refused to answer my question in another thread, so I thought I'd throw it open as a poll. Sue me. Choose A or B, no waffling, or vague inuendo.


I wonder if I should answer?

     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 12:13 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,