Where evolution is taught

[bpitt]

That is the response I anticipated.

[bpitt]

I'm pondering now......................

[USincognito]

And again, your telling the wrong people. There are a few people here that hold office in an elected position and a few running, but I doubt they read through all of this to propose to our local or state government that we start teaching evolution. It's just not going to happen. It's a political system, and they want votes.

Aaron, I'm not sure if this was addressed to me, but I'm assuming it was since you posted it after a message of mine.

Who are these wrong people? What does people holding elected office or positions on school boards have to do with the value of the content of a post? Even the number of people who have posted to this thread isn't indicative of who might have read it. We all know the refrain "for the lurkers".

I checked the visitor stats and there were 171 members and 700+ guests who viewed pages here yesterday. Some of the posters here might not want to hear both sides of the story, but, like the guy in the blog I quoted a few pages back, some do, even if only out of curiousity.

[USincognito]

Hey, PeteH - are you part of the JREF group that USIncog and Valkhorn wanted to come here to enlighten us? Just curious.

If you're going to crosspost from the Christianforums thread, at least get your facts right. I am the only member of the JREF forum posting here that I'm aware of, and nowhere in what I wrote on CF did I say I was going to "enlighten" you. Please don't assign motives where there are none.

[B.T. Justice]

If it was created, it was created to look like it evolved.

Do you hold this as a possibility?

[PeteH]

Do you hold this as a possibility?

Only in the loosest philosophical sense. I contend that the universe is objective, so if something looks like something, it probably is that something.

[Conveyor Belt]

I donno, Pete, I think zorro actually laid out a great example for proof of evolution. He didn't mean to, but he did, in a way...

Let's look at the evolution of wheeled transportation...

First, we start with the cart. Two wheeled with two legs to stand on. Somewhere along the way, someone decided 4 wheels were better. Now, we still have 2 wheeled cars around, but not in nearly the number that they were, nor in the primitive build of the past. Then, came the wagon. Next, it evolved into a motor coach. Now, we don't see too many of these older, less efficient cars around... they've been naturally selected out of the automobile motor pool. We have branches where someone put a motor on a bicycle, introducing the motorcycle. Somewhere along the way, someone got the fancy idea of putting wings on a cart, and the airplane was born. They evolved into jets, etc.

Now, no one's going to look at the 2007 automobile and say, Hey, isn't that a marvelous work of God? I mean, it's got ALL these complicated parts and pieces. If we're of the notion that there were no other lesser forms of cars before the modern automobile, how would we explain it, other than some devine act? But, if you believe that there were other types of cars around in the past, it's easy to see how we got to the one we have now.

Good job, Zorro... good job!!!

[aaron]

Well, all of us that don't believe in evolution are in the majority. I read an article the other day that said belief in the evolution theory has actually decreased in America in the past 20 years. More and more Americans are actually beginning to see that evolution is false, not the other way around. In 1987, when the evolution theory was just beginning to gain ground and be taught in some schools, more people believed it then, than now. I think those that do still hang on to it, see their backs against the wall, and so let's furiously try to argue science with as many people as possible.

[Conveyor Belt]

Well, all of us that don't believe in evolution are in the majority. I read an article the other day that said belief in the evolution theory has actually decreased in America in the past 20 years. More and more Americans are actually beginning to see that evolution is false, not the other way around. In 1987, when the evolution theory was just beginning to gain ground and be taught in some schools, more people believed it then, than now. I think those that do still hang on to it, see their backs against the wall, and so let's furiously try to argue science with as many people as possible.

aaron, can you inform the participants here of where you read that article?

[PeteH]

Well, all of us that don't believe in evolution are in the majority. I read an article the other day that said belief in the evolution theory has actually decreased in America in the past 20 years. More and more Americans are actually beginning to see that evolution is false, not the other way around. In 1987, when the evolution theory was just beginning to gain ground and be taught in some schools, more people believed it then, than now. I think those that do still hang on to it, see their backs against the wall, and so let's furiously try to argue science with as many people as possible.

I've seen the polls and the acceptance of evolutionary theory is pretty split about 50-50. It tends to shift a few point either way, but there hasn't been a dramatic leap.

Of course the validity of evolutionary theory has absolutely zip to do with popular support. That's why I'm so interested in its application. It's what is really important.

[aaron]

aaron, can you inform the participants here of where you read that article?

Yeah, it was in New Scientist magazine.

[PeteH]

TheDoc disagrees: The difference between zorro and you is that he speaks from his personal education and experiences. You are just quoting the work of others without a firm experiential grasp on the subject matter.

We're talking science here. I am deferring to the experts in the field--i.e. biologists. And FWIW regarding my own background, I have been discussing/debating this and learning about evolution for about 5 years, including taking University level courses on the subject.

I have no idea what education and experiences zorro is coming from, but I haven't seen much more from zorro than personal incredulity at this point. If you or someone else wants to challenge this, then do so. But for all people are willing to attack evolutionary biology, nobody is willing to tackle the issue of applied evolutionary biology.

[fuzzis]

I have to say that you're being a little ridiculous here, Doc. At some point we have to say that we can trust the words of other experts...I mean, you talk about quite a number of things from a very knowledgeable position, but I highly doubt that everything you talk about is something you have first-hand experience with.

We can be educated about a topic without actually having first hand experience with it.

[dollfus46]

I have to say that you're being a little ridiculous here, Doc. At some point we have to say that we can trust the words of other experts...I mean, you talk about quite a number of things from a very knowledgeable position, but I highly doubt that everything you talk about is something you have first-hand experience with.

We can be educated about a topic without actually having first hand experience with it.

Agreed. If we could only see or use what we ourselves had first hand knowledge of, we'd still be trying to invent fire. Be a bunch of short short stories about science in the libraries.

[just-Wynn]

Wynn does like short stories now. :police:

[just-Wynn]

If the present theory of gravity is correct. Then how do we account for the size and mass of the universe?

[PeteH]

What I am not willing to do is argue with people for the sake of arguing, especially when they have never collected a scrap of data for themselves and have no idea all that can go wrong, even in a highly controlled lab setting.

Debating does not make you an expert.

Taking classes helps, but still leaves you short of expert status.

I never claimed to be an expert. Just informed about the subject.

Right now, this is equivalent to someone who has read a lot of parenting books and talked about it a lot, but has NO children, trying to tell another person how to raise his/her child.

Alright, then let's defer to the experts:

The American Institute of Biological Sciences (http://www.aibs.org/position-statements/19980602_aibs_endorsed_s.html):

"AIBS has endorsed the 1998 report, Evolution, Science, and Society: Evolutionary Biology and the National Research Agenda (http://evonet.sdsc.edu/evoscisociety/short/biologys1.htm), from the American Society of Naturalists, the Society for the Study of Evolution, the Society for Molecular Biology and Evolution, the Ecological Society of America, the Society of Systematic Biologists, the Genetics Society of America, the Animal Behavior Society, and the Paleontological Society."

From that report:

"Evolutionary Biology has unequivocally established that all organisms evolved from a common ancestor over the last 3.5 billion years; it has documented many specific events in evolutionary history; and it has developed a well-valued theory of the genetic, developmental, and ecological mechanisms of evolutionary change. The methods, concepts, and perspectives of evolutionary biology have made and will continue to make important contributions to other biological disciplines, such as molecular and developmental biology, physiology, and ecology, as well as to other basic sciences such as psychology, anthropology, and computer science. In order for evolutionary biology to realize its full potential, biologists must integrate the methods and results of evolutionary research with those of other disciplines both within and outside of biology. We must apply evolutionary research to societal problems, and we must include the implications of that research in the education of a scientifically informed citizenry."

How about the American Association for the Advancement of Science (http://archives.aaas.org/docs/resolutions.php?doc_id=443):

"Evolution is one of the most robust and widely accepted principles of modern science. It is the foundation for research in a wide array of scientific fields and, accordingly, a core element in science education. The AAAS Board of Directors is deeply concerned, therefore, about legislation and policies recently introduced in a number of states and localities that would undermine the teaching of evolution and deprive students of the education they need to be informed and productive citizens in an increasingly technological, global community."

Or the The Botanical Society of America (http://www.botany.org/outreach/evolution.php):

"Evolution represents one of the broadest, most inclusive theories used in pursuit of and in teaching this knowledge, but it is by no means the only theory involved. Scientific theories are used in two ways: to explain what we know, and to pursue new knowledge. Evolution explains observations of shared characteristics (the result of common ancestry and descent with modification) and adaptations (the result of natural selection acting to maximize reproductive success), as well as explaining pollen:ovule ratios, weeds, deceptive pollination strategies, differences in sexual expression, dioecy, and a myriad of other biological phenomena. Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, “evolution is just a theory,” the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true."

(emphasis all mine)

I could go on and on and on. But the consensus is clear. The scientific community, particularly those in the bio-sciences, view evolution as a robust, well-supported scientific theory and one that is critical to biology and the application thereof.

And yet about half of the American public has no interest in "expert" opinion on the subject.

[aaron]

Anyone done with this topic? Don't reply yes, just don't reply.

[PeteH]

Anyone done with this topic? Don't reply yes, just don't reply.

Seems to be more of a popularity contest at this point.

[dollfus46]

Seems to be more of a popularity contest at this point.
:zelfmoord

[zorro]

Pete won't be convinced of this because his presuppositions (those that he denies that he has) won't allow it. And this is why it is futile to discuss this issue with him or others of his same clan that have bombarded this site recently. They do not see because they refuse to do so. If they would even consider the possibility of other presuppositions, then they would realize that if their own presuppositions are not held, then their evidence for evolution is certainly less than compelling.

Near the beginning of this thread, I made a book recommendation about the theory of evolution, and now I would like to strongly recommend another one. Darwin on Trial by Phillip E. Johnson was published initially in 1991. The author was a law clerk for Chief Justice Earl Warren and he taught law for over 30 years at the University of California at Berkley. In chapter 1 of his book, he states:

I am not a scientist but an academic lawyer by profession, with a specialty in analyzing the logic of arguments and identifying the assumptions that lie behind those arguments. This background is more appropriate than one might think, because what people believe about evolution and Darwinism depends very heavily on the kind of logic they employ and the kind of assumptions they make. Being a scientist is not necessarily an advantage when dealing with a very broad topic like evolution, which cuts across many scientific disciplines and also involves issues of philosophy. Practicing scientists are of necessity highly specailized, and a scientist outside his field of expertise is just another layman.

And FWIW regarding my own background, I have been discussing/debating this and learning about evolution for about 5 years, including taking University level courses on the subject.

Well, may I suggest that there is still much to learn. I would encourage everybody here to give this thread a break for a few days and to read this book instead. It is extremely well written and even entertaining. And don't read the critiques of it until you have actually read the book. The critiques don't look so good if you've actually read and understood the book. In addition, there might be found some common ground here once the book is read.

[PeteH]

I read Darwin on Trial a number of years ago (my University actually has a copy in their library). I can't really remember too much from the book, but from what I do remember is that it focused a lot on fossils and seemed to treat absense of evidence as falsification of evolution. I'd probably have to go back and re-read it to really remember the rest of the content.

The other problem is that it's pretty dated by now and has nothing on various developments in biology (i.e. genomics) from the last 10 years or so. I probably sound like a broken record by now, but I really think that anyone who seriously investigates modern biology, evolutionary theory, and its application will have a hard time rejecting it.

[Scotz]

"The other problem is [Johnson's book is] pretty dated by now and has nothing on various developments in biology (i.e. genomics) from the last 10 years or so. I probably sound like a broken record by now, but I really think that anyone who seriously investigates modern biology, evolutionary theory, and its application will have a hard time rejecting it."

"a hard time rejecting it" ?? Neo-darwinism is as firmly grounded on Jell-o like never before, and it's not only non-darwinists like myself (I have a graduate degree in zoology from an accredited university and have published in a peer-reviewed journal) that are saying so. I urge PeteH to "seriously investigate" the 2nd ed of Levinton's book on Macroevolution (2001). No facts of macroevolution. None.

I've almost finished Mark Ridley's Evolution 2004 (2nd ed, Oxford Readers). There's no facts of macroevolution. None.

Then there's Gould's formidable Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002)that I'm also finishing. No facts of macroevolution. None. As PeteH says, "I probably sound like a broken record by now . . ."

darwinists rely on natural selection and purely random genetic mistakes. I quote from Paul Ehrlich (Human Natures), "Because mutations are random relative to need and because organisms generally fit well into their environments, mutations normally are either neutral or harmful; only very rarely are they helpful - just as a random change made by poking a screwdriver into the guts of your computer will rarely improve its performance" p. 21. The faith of the macroevolutionist . . . .

Human evolution is serious trouble . . . again. Specifically, we don't know anything about it, "The trouble is we probably know more about the evolution of extinct trilobites than we do about human evolution" (Douglas Palmer paleontologist, New Scientist, March, 2002). Colbert (2001) says, "Perhaps no aspect of evolution has received such intense study as human evolution, yet this is a subject concerning which there is much debate, and about which there is much still to be learned" p. 348. In May, 2001 evolutionist Meg Rudolph called Australopithecus a "hodge-podge genus" (Geotimes, p. 7). The latest scientific discovery (PNAS April 2007, pp. 6568-72) removes the coveted Australopithecus afarensis (e.g. Lucy) from the human line! These findings of evolutionist Yoel Rak, "cast doubt on the role of A. afarensis as a modern human ancestor" (Science News v. 171). People have always been . . . . people.

Molecular evolution? Forget it. Atheist James Trefil said, "I am skeptical of arguments, like those of the molecular biologists, based on long strings of theoretical assumptions" (1996, p. 269). This is also true in plants, "This early assurance now appears to be wrong, and molecular data are in fact subject to most of the same problems that morphological data are" (Judd, et al., 1999 Sinauer Associates, Inc., p. 93). This 'fossils vs. molecules' confrontation is an "often polarized debate" according to atheist R.L. Cann (Quarterly Review of Biology, June, '06, p. 168). Atheist Peter Forey of London's Natural History Museum said the molecular evidence is "fraught with difficulties of interpretation" (J. of Paleontology 77(1)).

Meanwhile there are natural limits to biological change. No matter how much we mutate Drosophila (since 1910), they stubbornly remain fruit flies. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria remain the same species. Pesticide-resistant insects remain the same species. The missing links are . . . well, missing.

It's getting better 'n better for The Alternative to darwinism!

[PeteH]

Neo-darwinism is as firmly grounded on Jell-o like never before, and it's not only non-darwinists like myself (I have a graduate degree in zoology from an accredited university and have published in a peer-reviewed journal) that are saying so.

And what have you had published? What are your areas of research? Can I look it up?

I urge PeteH to "seriously investigate" the 2nd ed of Levinton's book on Macroevolution (2001). No facts of macroevolution. None.

I've almost finished Mark Ridley's Evolution 2004 (2nd ed, Oxford Readers). There's no facts of macroevolution. None.

I'll check 'em out when I get a chance. Last textbook I read was Futuyma's 1997 textbook on evolution.

Then there's Gould's formidable Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002)that I'm also finishing.

I give you props for reading that tome. I couldn't get past the prose. Gould needs an editor.

darwinists rely on natural selection and purely random genetic mistakes. I quote from Paul Ehrlich (Human Natures), "Because mutations are random relative to need and because organisms generally fit well into their environments, mutations normally are either neutral or harmful; only very rarely are they helpful - just as a random change made by poking a screwdriver into the guts of your computer will rarely improve its performance" p. 21. The faith of the macroevolutionist . . . .

Been there, heard that. However, based on the limited data on beneficial mutation rates (from Fitness effects of advantageous mutations in evolving Escherichia coli populations (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=14717)), I have yet to see any problem with mutation rates. On top of that, not all genetic change is necessarily going to be strictly beneficial. In fact, every time I see this argument, I don't see anyone put forth any concrete numbers as to why mutations are necessarily a problem.

Human evolution is serious trouble . . . again. Specifically, we don't know anything about it, "The trouble is we probably know more about the evolution of extinct trilobites than we do about human evolution" (Douglas Palmer paleontologist, New Scientist, March, 2002). Colbert (2001) says, "Perhaps no aspect of evolution has received such intense study as human evolution, yet this is a subject concerning which there is much debate, and about which there is much still to be learned" p. 348. In May, 2001 evolutionist Meg Rudolph called Australopithecus a "hodge-podge genus" (Geotimes, p. 7). The latest scientific discovery (PNAS April 2007, pp. 6568-72) removes the coveted Australopithecus afarensis (e.g. Lucy) from the human line! These findings of evolutionist Yoel Rak, "cast doubt on the role of A. afarensis as a modern human ancestor" (Science News v. 171). People have always been . . . . people.

These random quotes are simply discussing the lineage of human history. It's known that there are problems constructing specific lineages and that there is room for speculation. This is no surprise. However, despite the gaps in knowledge over specific lineages, I've yet to see anything but that the weight of the known evidence demonstrates common ancestry. It does nothing to invalidate the fact that there is a trend of fossils going back millions of years that show progression from a more primitive "ape-like" state to modern humans. Whether species X is a direct ancestor or an offshoot is somewhat besides the point.

Molecular evolution? Forget it. Atheist James Trefil said, "I am skeptical of arguments, like those of the molecular biologists, based on long strings of theoretical assumptions" (1996, p. 269). This is also true in plants, "This early assurance now appears to be wrong, and molecular data are in fact subject to most of the same problems that morphological data are" (Judd, et al., 1999 Sinauer Associates, Inc., p. 93). This 'fossils vs. molecules' confrontation is an "often polarized debate" according to atheist R.L. Cann (Quarterly Review of Biology, June, '06, p. 168). Atheist Peter Forey of London's Natural History Museum said the molecular evidence is "fraught with difficulties of interpretation" (J. of Paleontology 77(1)).

More random quotes (love to read them in context), but again, it's known that there are issues constructing specific phlyogenies for specific lineages.

Irregardless, they don't speak to what I have been reading regarding modern genomics/bioinformatics (specifically comparative genomics and phylogenomics) and how phylogenetic data is used in areas like gene finding and functional prediction.

But since you like quotes so much:

"Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory.” - Dr. Francis Collins (National Human Genome Research Institute)

Meanwhile there are natural limits to biological change. No matter how much we mutate Drosophila (since 1910), they stubbornly remain fruit flies. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria remain the same species. Pesticide-resistant insects remain the same species.

There are limits to genetic change within direct observation. This is because we simply don't have either the lifespans nor a time machine to observe genetic change on a scale of thousands or millions of years.

And I already posted links to literature demonstrating speciation. I'm starting to become skeptical of your claims to have a degree in zoology.

The missing links are . . . well, missing.

Oh, for crying out loud. Did you just crib all this stuff from the usual anti-evolution sources?

The fact is there will always be "missing links" because there will always be taxonomic gaps in the fossil record. However, this certainly does nothing to invalidate the umpteen found links and the fact the fossil evidence continues to accumulate.

It's getting better 'n better for The Alternative to darwinism!

"darwinism"? You mean evolution? I dunno, this seems a bit too much like the standard anti-evolution rhetoric. All you have done is suggest the usual areas where there is debate and need of more data. However, you have done nothing to invalidate the existing data.

[PeteH]

I am getting tired of the elitist attitudes expressed by the newbie evolutionists/athiests. Is it really necessary for one to be "published" in order to discuss the issue at hand.

Of course not. But he made the claim he was published. I just want to see what he's done and if it is, in fact, relevant to the discussion. But if it's not, then why even mention it?

And please note that I'm not the one who has been throwing around issues of credentials to discuss this stuff.

[B.T. Justice]

And please note that I'm not the one who has been throwing around issues of credentials to discuss this stuff.
Pete-
Save me from reading all 800+ posts. Did you post your credentials on here?
Really, not tryig to be antagonistic, just do not want to have to read the whole thing again.

[PeteH]

Pete-
Save me from reading all 800+ posts. Did you post your credentials on here?
Really, not tryig to be antagonistic, just do not want to have to read the whole thing again.

I have no formal science credentials. However, I have been researching the subject of evolution for about 5 years, and have read a variety of books on the subject including Futuyma's 1997 textbook, Evolutionary Biology, 3rd Edition, plus various journal material. I have also taken a couple second year University science courses as electives (I'm a business major myself), one on human genetics and evolution, and another on paleontology.

At one point I considered minoring in Biology, but I would have had to give up a full credit in first year physics and didn't want to do that.

[Scotz]

Yes, PeteH - the missing links are missing.

Please show me, from the scientific literature, a clear continuum in the fossil record that documents one type of plant or animal becoming something else. There should be many dozens of intermediate types if the "geologic column" is "600+ million years old". In the meantime -


In 2003 evolutionist A.G. Fisher admitted, "Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown."<SUP>1</SUP> A well-known zoology text<SUP>2</SUP> by three evolutionists reveal the limits of what is really known about the origin of animals— Unraveling the origin of the multicellular animals (metazoans) has presented many problems for zoologists (p. 240).

... one of the most intriguing questions is the place of mesozoans in the evolutionary picture (p. 242).

The origin of the cnidarians and ctenophores [comb jellies] is obscure (p. 275).

Any ancestral or other related group that would shed a clue to the phyletic [evolutionary] relationships of the Acanthocephala is probably long since extinct

(p. 317).

No truly satisfactory explanation has yet been given for the origins of metamerism [segmentation] and the coelom [a fluid-filled cavity], although the subject has stimulated much speculation and debate over the years (p. 365).

What can we infer about the common ancestor of the annelids [earthworms]? This has been the subject of a long and continuing debate (p. 365).

Controversy on phylogeny [evolution] within the Chelicerata [arthropods] also exists ... (p. 379).

The relationship of the crustaceans to other arthropods has long been a puzzle

(p. 399).

The phylogentic [evolutionary] position of the lophophorates [invertebrates] has been the subject of much controversy and debate (p. 447).

Despite the excellent fossil record, the origin and early evolution of the echinoderms [sea stars] are still obscure (p. 450).

Hemichordate phylogentic [evolution] has long been puzzling (p. 476).

... zoologists have debated the question of vertebrate origins. It has been very difficult to reconstruct lines of descent because the earliest protochordates were in all probability soft-bodied creatures that stood little chance of being preserved as fossils even under the most ideal conditions (p. 485).

However, the exact phylogentic [evolutionary] position of the chordates within the animal kingdom is unclear (p. 480).

The fishes are of ancient ancestry, having descended from an unknown free-swimming protochordate [a tunicate or lancelet] ancestor (p. 499).
For now, you will just have to believe me when I say I have published in a well-respected zoology journal.

"I'm starting to become skeptical of your claims to have a degree in zoology." PeteH - I am hoping we can keep this discussion civil and not question each other's credentials when we don't agree. OK? I have an advanced degree in zoology and my major professors made me do a lot more work to earn it when they discovered I didn't believe people came from prokaryotes.

""darwinism"? You mean evolution? I dunno, this seems a bit too much like the standard anti-evolution rhetoric."

Very well, I stand corrected. I meant neo-Darwinism, or the synthetic theory. Is the "standard anti-evolution rhetoric" like the standard anti-alternative to neo-Darwinism rhetoric" ?

""Outside of a time machine, Darwin could hardly have imagined a more powerful data set than comparative genomics to confirm his theory.” - Dr. Francis Collins (National Human Genome Research Institute)"

I challenge Dr. Collins (a committed macroevolutionist) on this statement and repeat what I stated in my original post, e.g. Atheist Peter Forey of London's Natural History Museum said the molecular evidence is "fraught with difficulties of interpretation" (J. of Paleontology 77(1)). I'll take Forey's words over Collins' any day.

You said, "literature demonstrating speciation" ??

Atheist Trevor Palmer (1999) stated, "Speciation remains a major problem, with there still being no clear indication as to whether new species are generally formed in an allopatric or sympatric fashion and what the mechanism might be" (Controversy p. 322).
"While discussing Darwin's book . . . T.H. Huxley asked, 'In the first place, what is a species?' The question is a simple one, but the right answer to it is hard to find. . . Actually, Huxley's commentary is as valid today as it was 135 years ago. Our concepts of species have become more sophisticated, but the diversity of different concepts and the disagreements surrounding their use are as evident now as they were in Darwin's time" (Hickman, Roberts, and Larson, Zoology, W.C. Brown, 1997, p. 205)

Speciation is arbitrary and is certainly not macroevolution.

"There are limits to genetic change within direct observation. This is because we simply don't have either the lifespans nor a time machine to observe genetic change on a scale of thousands or millions of years."

How very convenient for the macroevolutionist. In the meantime I'll stick with what can be observed in the laboratory (fruit flies, E. coli, C. elegans), field (Darwin's finches) and the fossil record. There are natural limits to biological change. No sign of macroevolution anywhere (see the books I listed in my original post).

Have a good weekend.


_____________________________

1. Fisher, A., 2003 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, fossil section.
2. Hickman, Roberts, and Larson, Zoology, W.C. Brown, 1997.

[chula-lainn]

Ok. First, Hi yall. I've been reading and would love to respond to all of yall's Posts but that would take forever and a day so I'll just comment on this:

Yes, PeteH - the missing links are missing.

Please show me, from the scientific literature, a clear continuum in the fossil record that documents one type of plant or animal becoming something else. There should be many dozens of intermediate types if the "geologic column" is "600+ million years old".

You do understand that the fact that we have ANY Fossils at all is a Miricle itself. Not every Plant or Animal that has ever lived would of been Fossilized. FossilsBetween the Rapid decay rates of Biomatter, the rare Conditions which remains require to Fossilize and the constant turmoil that this earth is constantly going through everyday that destroys Fossils, it's God's Gift to us that we find what we do. Most Fossils of most Animals that existed will Never be found. To expect someone to first discover a each and every Fossil in a Series and then diagram the complete Record of the Development of a single speices is too much to ask of anyone.

Also, to even Ask for a Complete "Continuum" noting the changes in a Speices is much like giving a someone a 24 Box of Crayons and asking them to Draw the Complete Color Spectrum. The most you'll get is a Rainbow, with Red, Blue, Yellow, Orange, Greens but you can't expect them to display alls the Colors in all their Hues.

But, More and More Fossils are being found, each one is like adding another hue to our Box of Crayons. Until there are no more to be found, the answer is up in the air.

[Astra]

Wow guys, nice to know that you only approve of people long-winded posts full of textbook cites when they match your opinions.

This crap's getting old, and I'm not just talking about the newbies.

[Astra]

As a matter of fact, I have. There's much to be respected about someone who can make you reexamine your own ideas, or make you better see where they are coming from, even if you still disagree with them at the end of the day.

[fuzzis]

Do you realize how petty you sound? Seriously? You're pouting because Astra has never given you positive rep? Are you kidding?

[Astra]

Maybe not in this thread. I KNOW I've given you, TheDoc, positive rep at least once, but it was several months ago before your little vacation. Kind of presumptuous to assume what I think about your posts just because I haven't repped them (positive or negative) and to drag Zorro into this as well.

Maybe you'd have an argument if I was neg-repping the heck out of you, but I think if you'd look you'd notice I don't hand out a whole lot of it, period.

[fuzzis]

Pouting? Are you so biased that you read negativity into everything I post?

The fact is Astra came here tonight whining about reputation given to a credible poster. She called out Tully and me as if we're so narrow minded that we can only positive rep people with whom we agree.

Well, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. I called her out because frankly I have NEVER seen her give positive rep for something fundamentally against her belief structure.

As I have said, if I am wrong, I will apologize. I don't mind admitting when I am wrong at all. :)

I'm not biased; your post was just incredibly ridiculous and presumptuous.

[aaron]

I disagree because of this quote, which I see everytime someone brings up missing links


Oh, for crying out loud. Did you just crib all this stuff from the usual anti-evolution sources?
What kind of argument is that? The posts are the same. Anti-evolution: Missing links. Evolution: There are some links.

That's not a scientific argument.

[Astra]

I disagree because of this quote, which I see everytime someone brings up missing links

What kind of argument is that? The posts are the same. Anti-evolution: Missing links. Evolution: There are some links.

That's not a scientific argument.
But the two aren't necessarily exclusive! PeteH even admits that there are gaps in the fossil record, you can't deny there isn't a complete picture drawn there.

I'm just kind of disappointed because I have a lot of respect for you and Tully, and to see Tully lauded for posting what at first I thought was a joke a couple pages ago (seriously, maybe it's just because I'm a science major, but the "science" made me cringe) and then for you to come in here and say "you've lost, go home." This kind of discussion shouldn't be a "win/lose" thing - isn't that what made everyone so upset with Valkhorn? He didn't bother to read anyone else's posts, and when he replied he did so in a nasty tone of dismissive superiority? (For those keeping score at home, I neg-repped him, too)

I continue to read and occasionally post in this thread because I find the topic interesting. Honestly, I don't care at the end of the day if I'm descended from Adam and Eve or homo habilus, but I do like the idea of trying to fit the pieces of the puzzle together.

I just don't like that this has become a "us against them" thing. I had no problem wanting to get rid of Valkhorn because, well, he was jerk to everyone. Now it looks to me like the bad behavior he exhibited has given the members of MH a free pass to take out their annoyance on anyone who believes in evolution.

If MH members hate these discussions and these topics so much, why do they keep clicking on the threads? Just looking for neg-rep targets?

[aaron]

Quite honestly, I disagreed with him. He does come off to me as being elitist. I mean, he's got a published zoologist on here disagreeing with him. He's being throwing evolutionary biology in our face the entire time, but didn't even minor in biology. You don't see anything wrong with that? I think your trying to blindly defend them at this point. I have been defending them behind the scenes and out in public. I have never neg-repped Valkorn. But when I've got a guy throwing evolutionary biology in my face, then an published zoologist comes on here and disagrees with him, and he still has an elitist attitude, that's the last straw for me.

[Astra]

I guess I just don't see "published" and therefore they are an expert in that particular niche of the field. Maybe that's a sign I've been in college too long :)

I'm not saying Scotz is unqualified, not at all. It's just that "accredited college" and "peer reviewed journal" could be relevant... or they could not be. Again, no offense to Scotz (I'm just trying to point out why I'm not giving your post any extra weight, sorry), but there are a ton of different accrediting agencies and journals that could be considered peer review. I've got no reason to doubt what he (or she, again, I don't know) says, but it might color my views if they had gone to Johns Hopkins and were published in Nature as opposed to a diploma mill (accredited by some slacker agency) and a little-circulated journal. It would also depend if his (or her) area of interest was something very close to current evolution research, or tied more to another area.

Again, this isn't meant as a downgrade to Scotz in any way. I'm just trying to get across why I don't instantly value their opinion any more than PeteH's based on that one line.

[Astra]

I kind of think one of the big problems we have here is that the two groups seem to be looking for different kinds of evidence. Keep in mind this is just me talking, so your mileage may vary.

The evolutionists are looking at everything in kind of a minimalist, logical method. You look at everything around you and try to connect it. Sometimes you don't have all the data, so you come up with a best guess that fits it. Occam's Razor got brought up somewhere, and it usually works - go with the simplest possible explanation.

Same thing with the creationists, but their simple explanation is "God created it." Evolutionists don't like it because it feels like a cop-out - science should follow rules and be consistent, processes should logically go from one step to the next. An all-powerful being willing things into existence throws that all out of whack.

Atheists start their understanding of the universe from what science collectively knows and they try to fit that science to the unknown. Stuff gets tossed out as it becomes obsolete or disproved. Meanwhile, Creationists start off with the Bible as their framework. The conflict arises when science starts to contradict what the Bible says. Hardcore Creation science, the kind that takes Genesis literally, often ends up crimping science to fit a Biblical framework.

Now about that evidence thing:
The evolution advocates, like I said, are looking for really logical stuff, like "X is a scientifically accepted fact and Y is a scientifically proven fact, so Z is true." If I wanted to convince one that the moon orbited Earth, I could sit them down with photographs taken from space, mathematical calculations galore, telescopes, etc. Not so much me proving to him, but him proving it to himself via the methods he knows. (Unless he's one of those people that believe NASA is a Hollywood production, but there's no convincing some people)

Now when I read posts by the creation advocates, I see more testimonial evidence. Scotz' post had a lot of quotes, but they were shaped as opinions not so much as something you can test. One of the common arguments has been that something complex as a human, or even just of a human's eye, could not have evolved into being, or at least not without some help. It's an observation, but it's very subjective and not quite testable. It's not necessarily wrong, but it isn't in the right kind of terms to compete with what the evolutionists use.

I guess that's just an overstatement of what it comes down to - what science accepts as fact versus what people accept as the Truth.

[Astra]

In May, 2001 evolutionist Meg Rudolph called Australopithecus a "hodge-podge genus" (Geotimes, p. 7). The latest scientific discovery (PNAS April 2007, pp. 6568-72) removes the coveted Australopithecus afarensis (e.g. Lucy) from the human line! These findings of evolutionist Yoel Rak, "cast doubt on the role of A. afarensis as a modern human ancestor" (Science News v. 171). People have always been . . . . people.

One thing I wanted to point out earlier is that I'm surprised a zoologist would use these articles as evidence against evolution because what they are describing isn't really a strike against the theory of evolution, just the classification of a species. I guess if there's a big difference to a person between human evolution and animals evolving maybe it's more striking.

I just checked out the PNAS article (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/short/104/16/6568) (link goes to abstract) and it suggests that Lucy was more closely related to gorillas than to chimpanzees (who are regarded as the closest primate relative to humans) based on jawbone analysis. Even if she isn't a human precursor, doesn't the article still support the idea that she is a gorilla precursor? The story from Science News is just a rehash of the PNAS article.

Evolution isn't necessarily a linear thing, and I think some people have the misconception that it is. Maybe it comes from the Creationist view that we're all descended from Adam and Eve, so it's natural to assume that evolutionists think we all have a single common protohuman ancestor. If you believe in the theory though, other species were evolving at the same time, some ending up as modern primates. Here (http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20010324/fob1.asp) is another article from Science News that talks about another species that may have existed at the same time as A. afarensis. Sounds like Lucy's status as a link in the human line of descent has been iffy for at least a few years.

[PeteH]

What kind of argument is that? The posts are the same. Anti-evolution: Missing links. Evolution: There are some links.

That's not a scientific argument.

Because the "missing links" argument is vacuous. It's basically claiming, "we don't have perfect knowledge about X, therefore X is false". When in fact, what we do know about X suggests that X is true, in spite of the fact that we don't have perfect knowledge, and pretty much be guaranteed never to have perfect knowledge about X.

Or to put it another way, we deal with the evidence we have, not the evidence we wish we had.

[Blasko]

Please show me, from the scientific literature, a clear continuum in the fossil record that documents one type of plant or animal becoming something else. I'm astounded that you have used such general terms as 'type'. You of all people should know better than that. What happened to 'species' and 'genera'?

This post also shows a fundamental lack of understanding of what transitional fossils are claimed to show. They show an organism that lived at one point of time, showing characteristics of organisms that lived before and after it. We cannot know if that organism was the direct ancestor of 'something else', which is why the proper scientific terminology is 'sister-group'.

As for this clear continuum in the fossil record, you have not defined on what basis you are measuring the 'clearness' of the continuum. Enough to satisfy the Mark I Eyeball? Not good enough for a scientific journal I'm afraid, again a fact that you are aware of. And it's been mentioned plenty of times before that the fossil record is not perfect and there are chunks of it missing, yet that does not detract from the overall picture that organisms do change.

Scientific journals hold you to a higher standard than you are displaying to us amateurs.

[Conveyor Belt]

Here's my OT issue... oh, f**k it...

[aaron]

Because the "missing links" argument is vacuous. It's basically claiming, "we don't have perfect knowledge about X, therefore X is false". When in fact, what we do know about X suggests that X is true, in spite of the fact that we don't have perfect knowledge, and pretty much be guaranteed never to have perfect knowledge about X.

Or to put it another way, we deal with the evidence we have, not the evidence we wish we had.

The theory is vacuous in many ways that have already been stated. Science is all about proving theory to point it is fact. "Science refers to any systematic methodology which attempts to collect accurate information about reality and to model this in a way which can be used to make reliable, concrete and quantitative predictions about future events and observations". Can you make concrete, reliable predictions about evolution? Seriously? You don't know what is going to happen next quite frankly. Anyone that says that they do is lying. Since you cannot reproduce this in a controlled environment 100 or 1000 times, it is theory. Therefore, I believe it should stay at the college level. It's as simple as that. If you make a conscience choice to go into the fields of biology, zoology, natural history, etc., then go ahead, teach them evolution all you want. They are old enough to see the difference between theory and fact. They are old enough to discern for themselves what is fact, and what is fiction.

[zorro]

I read Darwin on Trial a number of years ago (my University actually has a copy in their library). I can't really remember too much from the book, but from what I do remember is that it focused a lot on fossils and seemed to treat absense of evidence as falsification of evolution. I'd probably have to go back and re-read it to really remember the rest of the content.
Only one chapter of 12 chapters deals with "The Fossil Problem".

As far as evidence goes, here are a couple of more quotes from chapter 1 regarding evidence:

But evidence never speaks for itself; it has meaning only in the context of rules of reasoning which determine what may be considered and what counts as evidence. Those rules of reasoning are what I particularly want to examine.

My purpose is to examine the scientific evidence on its own terms, being careful to distinguish the evidence itself from any religious or philosophical bias, that might distort our interpretation of that evidence.

Now, Pete, doesn't that seem like a reasonable approach to this subject?

The other problem is that it's pretty dated by now . . .
A 2nd edition of the book was published in 1993, which is only 4 years earlier than some text that you read and thought worthy of mentioning. And what Darwin on Trial deals with is not "dated" by any means. I encourage you to again read it and to really attempt to understand the points that the author makes.

[zorro]

There are natural limits to biological change. No sign of macroevolution anywhere
Scotz has only posted 2 posts here, but they are both superb posts.

Scotz, welcome to the site!!

Of course, now I'm going to have to spend some money to buy some more books since you've mentioned a few that sound interesting.

[zorro]

Oak Grove thread had 817 posts, so we're close.
Hey, this thread now has beaten the old Oak Grove thread for number of posts. :smt118

[Ted]

Ok. First, Hi yall. I've been reading and would love to respond to all of yall's Posts but that would take forever and a day so I'll just comment on this: . . . . . . . . . .Hi Chula-Lainn. :)
Welcome to MH Forums.

[Tully Mars]

I'm just kind of disappointed because I have a lot of respect for you and Tully, and to see Tully lauded for posting what at first I thought was a joke a couple pages ago (seriously, maybe it's just because I'm a science major, but the "science" made me cringe) and then for you to come in here and say "you've lost, go home."


Hey Astra, don't blame me. The trolls seemed hungry and I was simply giving them a bit of food. :-D

I still think that in certain terms, the context of this whole arguement is pretty ridiculous. I am fully willing to believe in the basic principles of evolution...just not in the absence of God, who is perfectly capable of using evolution as a creation tool.

I simply find it very difficult to believe that the universe, as complex as it is, all came together by happenstance.

[chula-lainn]

Hey Astra, don't blame me. The trolls seemed hungry and I was simply giving them a bit of food. :-D

Purhaps they simply found your feast to be a little Empty and Unfulfilling.:)

I still think that in certain terms, the context of this whole arguement is pretty ridiculous. I am fully willing to believe in the basic principles of evolution...just not in the absence of God, who is perfectly capable of using evolution as a creation tool.

I simply find it very difficult to believe that the universe, as complex as it is, all came together by happenstance.

I do not think that what any of the Evos here make the claim that God had no part in it. They only claim is that the system by which the universe works is so well "Designed" that there is no need to ever declare a Miracle to explain it's function. Even when a Miracle is percieved, it can still be a part of the Natural working order because that's how it works. Evolution is exactly that; Natural and Amazing. Why did God need to create everthing the easy way when he could have made the whole World from Scratch and made it even more Spectacular; A true Testiment of God's Power.

As far as I've seen, the only one I've seen say that the Universe is a Product of Happenstance and that God played no part is the Crevos who Tried to misrepresent the Evos' Arguement as Godless and Evil.

[Tully Mars]

Purhaps they simply found your feast to be a little Empty and Unfulfilling.:)

Maybe so, but it did keep them chewing for a couple of days anyway. :smt118

[Blasko]

Science is all about proving theory to point it is fact. No it is not. Plenty of people have already stated that science is not about proving things. Proof is impossible to obtain when there are always infinite options left to consider.

In science, there are observational facts, such as the observed fact that apples fall down. Theories like the theory of gravity are explanations for these facts. In science, 'fact' is not better than 'theory'. It's the opposite. Without theories, you just have a lot of facts with no real understanding of why and how.

Can you make concrete, reliable predictions about evolution?Yes. Seriously? You don't know what is going to happen next quite frankly. Anyone that says that they do is lying. Since you cannot reproduce this in a controlled environment 100 or 1000 times, it is theory.I'm not trying to be offensive here, but you are totally wrong. In science, 'prediction' does not simply mean 'forecasting will happen next', like the casual use of the word. A prediction is a hypothesis about what is expected to happen under a certain set of experimental variables. Predictions are bound by limits e.g. If this is true, then this should be happen/be observable.

Predictions for evolution are used everyday in cladistical analyses, comparative genomics, palaeontology and evolutionary biology. I believe PeteH or Valkhorn mentioned this earlier.

[Blasko]

Here's a great piece of prediction and evidence for the common ancestry of humans and other great apes.
Introduction All great apes apart from man have 24 pairs of chromosomes. There is therefore a hypothesis that the common ancestor of all great apes had 24 pairs of chromosomes and that the fusion of two of the ancestor's chromosomes created chromosome 2 in humans. The evidence for this hypothesis is very strong.

The Evidence
Evidence for fusing of two ancestral chromosomes to create human chromosome 2 and where there has been no fusion in other Great Apes is:

1) The analogous chromosomes (2p and 2q) in the non-human great apes can be shown, when laid end to end, to create an identical banding structure to the human chromosome 2. (1) (http://www.fhcrc.org/labs/trask/subtelomeres/)
2) The remains of the sequence that the chromosome has on its ends (the telomere) is found in the middle of human chromosome 2 where the ancestral chromosomes fused. (2) (http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm#References)
3) the detail of this region (pre-telomeric sequence, telomeric sequence, reversed telomeric sequence, pre-telomeric sequence) is exactly what we would expect from a fusion. (3) (http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm#References)
4) this telomeric region is exactly where one would expect to find it if a fusion had occurred in the middle of human chromosome 2.
5) the centromere of human chromosome 2 lines up with the chimp chromosome 2p chromosomal centromere.
6) At the place where we would expect it on the human chromosome we find the remnants of the chimp 2q centromere (4) (http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm#References).From here. (http://www.evolutionpages.com/chromosome_2.htm)

There were predictions on what would be expected if a chromosome fusion event took place and those predictions turn out to be well supported by evidence.

BETHESDA, Md., Wed., April 6, 2005 - A detailed analysis of chromosomes 2 and 4 has detected the largest "gene deserts" known in the human genome and uncovered more evidence that human chromosome 2 arose from the fusion of two ancestral ape chromosomes, researchers supported by the National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI), part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), reported today.

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes - one less pair than chimpanzees, gorillas, orangutans and other great apes. For more than two decades, researchers have thought human chromosome 2 was produced as the result of the fusion of two mid-sized ape chromosomes and a Seattle group located the fusion site in 2002.
In the latest analysis, researchers searched the chromosome's DNA sequence for the relics of the center (centromere) of the ape chromosome that was inactivated upon fusion with the other ape chromosome. They subsequently identified a 36,000 base pair stretch of DNA sequence that likely marks the precise location of the inactived centromere. That tract is characterized by a type of DNA duplication, known as alpha satellite repeats, that is a hallmark of centromeres. In addition, the tract is flanked by an unusual abundance of another type of DNA duplication, called a segmental duplication.
From here. (http://www.genome.gov/13514624)

For those of you who want to read more about this chromosome fusion event, here's a great paper:

Origin of Human Chromosome 2: An Ancestral Telomere-Telomere Fusion
JW Ijdo, A Baldini, DC Ward, ST Reeders, and RA Wells (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/88/20/9051.pdf)

[USincognito]

Wow guys, nice to know that you only approve of people long-winded posts full of textbook cites when they match your opinions.

This crap's getting old, and I'm not just talking about the newbies.

Actually they rep long winded cut and pastes that don't have any citations as well. :-D

[USincognito]

I mean, he's got a published zoologist on here disagreeing with him.

Actually he's got someone claiming to be a published zoologist who has done little more than offer quote mining... a favorite creationist tactic. Unless you guys have some more information about him(her?), I'm a bit skeptical.

I kind of think one of the big problems we have here is that the two groups seem to be looking for different kinds of evidence. Keep in mind this is just me talking, so your mileage may vary.

Sorry to snippy your post but this is the point I want to address. Reducing the discussion to Creationists and atheists is incorrect. There are TEs of many religions and creeds, and I believe I posted earlier that some of the more powerful and effective Evolution advocates on Christianforums, where Valkhorn, Pete and I post, are TEs.

Even if she isn't a human precursor, doesn't the article still support the idea that she is a gorilla precursor? The story from Science News is just a rehash of the PNAS article.

From what I've seen the article is suggesting A. afarensis shares common ancestry with gorillas so a cladogram might look like this:
A. afarensis\___/G. gorilla/______/P. trodlodytes/__P. pensiscus\_____H. sapiens.
There are also some other finds in the fossil record with cranial crests like Gorillas (P. Boisei being one IIRC) so some of these beings might represent offshoot groups from a common ancestor with G. gorilla rather than P. trodglodytes.

Of course the fossil record is just one tiny portion of the mountain of evidence for human evolution. Blasko noted human chromosome 2. There's pseudogenes, cytochrome C, endogenous retroviruses and a number of matches that the Human and Chimpanzee genome projects have found as well.

[USincognito]

Yes, PeteH - the missing links are missing.

Please show me, from the scientific literature, a clear continuum in the fossil record that documents one type of plant or animal becoming something else. There should be many dozens of intermediate types if the "geologic column" is "600+ million years old".

Transitional vertebrates (no doubt you've seen this source... but have you investigated each of the finds cited?)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

In 2003 evolutionist A.G. Fisher admitted, "Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown."<SUP>1</SUP>
1. Fisher, A., 2003 Grolier Multimedia Encyclopedia, fossil section.

Are you sure it was 2003 because I found 3 different sources claiming was variously 2003, 2002 or 1998 (one being the same source)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=a.+g.+fisher+origin+of+life+unknown

[Blasko]

In 2003 evolutionist A.G. Fisher admitted, "Both the origin of life and the origin of the major groups of animals remains unknown."¹ I'm just wondering why creationists use quotes as evidence. Especially quotes dealing with words like 'admit' and 'controversy' as if they are to be pounced upon as examples of scientific failing when controversy and uncertainty are the fuel for further scientific progress.

Science is not infallible. But scientists not knowing everything does not equal evidence for creationism. Elimination of evolution does not mean creationism is the only choice left standing. You'll have to come up with positive evidence for your own side sometime or another, because you're going to be laughed at if you introduce creationism into science classes because "evolution doesn't do this, evolution doesn't explain that".

Scotz, do you have a lab website that I can check out?

[USincognito]

I'm just wondering why creationists use quotes as evidence. Especially quotes dealing with words like 'admit' and 'controversy' as if they are to be pounced upon as examples of scientific failing when controversy and uncertainty are the fuel for further scientific progress.

This is acutally a great point and I'd like to note a difference in style.
TM posts what amounts to an essay or opinion piece (which TheDoc said was one of the "top ten posts ever") which was light on facts and evidence instead of posting... you know, facts and evidence.
http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=229172&postcount=678
I responded with what I felt was an interesting blog entry about a YEC confonting the actual avidence.
http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=229321&postcount=685
and actually provided a link to the article cited in the blog entry
http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=229324&postcount=686
and then went on to dissect TM's cut and past in
http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=229337&postcount=688
three
http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=229340&postcount=690
seperate
http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=229460&postcount=692
posts and yet the only response I got was - Man you spent a lot of time on that didn't you OMG ROTFL.

It's almost as if Creationists have an aversion to confronting the evidence and would rather just make broad statements or far ranging generalities rather than cut to brass tacks. Which brings me back to Scotz's quote mining contributions. I have this theory that Creationists, the majority being fundamentalists, are wedded to the notion of proof texting and somehow think that some out of context "verse" that they cite will undermine the position of those they disagree with and simultaneously prop up the position they do agree with.

It confounds me that the Creationists here who claim to know so much about science don't seem to realize (I mean witness the rep comments and thanks/groans) how science works. Falsifying a different theory is different from evidencing one's own theory... and there's a world of difference between quote mining (or making up stories as TM's cut and past did) and actually providing evidence supporting one's theory.

Having long experienced quote mining from Creationists I spent about an hour last night checking a bunch of Scotz's quotes and citations in Google and PubMed. The A.G. Fisher one I noted above wasn't the only one I found verbatim on the ICR website, but it's the only one I quoted and noted. I don't own the books he cited and I'm pressed for time so I'm going to handle the quotes the way I normally do.

the 2nd ed of Levinton's book on Macroevolution (2001). No facts of macroevolution. None.
Can you cite anything offered in that tome which suggests Macroevolution but fails to evidence it instead of just saying there is none?

Mark Ridley's Evolution 2004 (2nd ed, Oxford Readers). There's no facts of macroevolution. None.
Can you cite anything offered in that tome which suggests Macroevolution but fails to evidence it instead of just saying there is none?

Gould's formidable Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002)that I'm also finishing. No facts of macroevolution. None.
Can you cite anything offered in that tome which suggests Macroevolution but fails to evidence it instead of just saying there is none?

Paul Ehrlich (Human Natures), "Because mutations are random relative to need and because organisms generally fit well into their environments, mutations normally are either neutral or harmful; only very rarely are they helpful - just as a random change made by poking a screwdriver into the guts of your computer will rarely improve its performance" p. 21.

So Paul Ehrlich advocates that random mutations can be helpful, even if only rarely? How does that important ceveat support your contention?

"The trouble is we probably know more about the evolution of extinct trilobites than we do about human evolution" (Douglas Palmer paleontologist, New Scientist, March, 2002).
This is one of the other quotes that had a lot of Creationist website hits. Can you give us the full paragraph in context?

Colbert (2001) says, "Perhaps no aspect of evolution has received such intense study as human evolution, yet this is a subject concerning which there is much debate, and about which there is much still to be learned" p. 348.

I did a PubMed search for a Colbert regarding human evolution and came up with nothing. Can you provide a full name for a proper citation or are you just playing the Creationist "looks official" name game? And I hate to break this to you, but his statement, if valid, has a "duh" factor of 10. We have been studying human evolution for as long as we have all evolution (since about the 1850s {Neanderthal and Archeopteryx finds were about that time}) but there are still a lot of questions. There aren't as many for other lineages.

In May, 2001 evolutionist Meg Rudolph called Australopithecus a "hodge-podge genus" (Geotimes, p. 7).
This was one of the few articles you cited I could actually find on line and she does use that term. I'd note though that while the fossils are sometimes lumped together until further finds allow differentiation, there's something special about a particular Australopithecus africanus find called the Taung Child - his foramen magnum was located at the base of his skull. We don't find that in any other fellow great ape... only humans. So regardless of Meg Rudolph's turn of a phrase, we've found an Australopithecus species that clearly was bipedal.

The latest scientific discovery (PNAS April 2007, pp. 6568-72) removes the coveted Australopithecus afarensis (e.g. Lucy) from the human line! These findings of evolutionist Yoel Rak, "cast doubt on the role of A. afarensis as a modern human ancestor" (Science News v. 171).
Covered in previous posts, but your "people have always been people" post script is problematic as Taung child clearly isn't a H. sapiens, but has a sapiens located foramen magnum while Turkana Boy is obviously a Homo except for his tiny cranium and massive jaw. Leaving aside the mountains of genetic evidence, the fossils say "people" haven't always been "H. sapiens."

James Trefil said, "I am skeptical of arguments, like those of the molecular biologists, based on long strings of theoretical assumptions" (1996, p. 269).
Context please! I once had a Creationist on Christianforums quote mine molecular anthropologist Dr. Jonathan Marks to try suggest humans and Chimpanzees weren't related. I responded with quotes from Marks' book "What does it mean to be 98% Chimpanzee" showing Marks felt the evidence of common ancestry was undeniable and he never gave a satisfactory response. Taking quotes out of context can make someone who agrees with common ancestry 100% seem to deny it. Very 1984ish.

This is also true in plants, "This early assurance now appears to be wrong, and molecular data are in fact subject to most of the same problems that morphological data are" (Judd, et al., 1999 Sinauer Associates, Inc., p. 93).
My digging for the source of this led me to a citation on the Tree of Life Web (which is entirely based on common ancestry) and the Sinauer.org website. Can you give Judd a first name so I can check the paper on PubMeb or Google and see if you're not taking the cite out of context or drawing conclusions from it that aren't warrented?

This 'fossils vs. molecules' confrontation is an "often polarized debate" according to atheist R.L. Cann (Quarterly Review of Biology, June, '06, p. 16

Quarterly Review of Biology is availible on line for people who have subscriptions so I'm hoping any participants in this thread who have access to journals at their University can give us some context. I dug around PubMed until I found a Rebecca L. Cann and it seems her articles were only in journals and related to science, not atheism (nice red herring/poisoning of the well).

Atheist Peter Forey of London's Natural History Museum said the molecular evidence is "fraught with difficulties of interpretation" (J. of Paleontology 77(1)).

If one is going to quote a tiny fragment of what clearly is a longer sentence, it's considered proper form to at least use ellipses while doing so rather than acting if one were, say, quoting a character from a novel. I would like to see "atheist" Peter Forey's comments in the context of a sentence, much less the entire paragraph from which it was extracted.

Well, bedtime for me, but tonight I should have the bandwidth and time to address the quote mining from Scotz's post number 808
http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=232064&postcount=808
which I shall do so this evening. Have a great Sunday everyone and hope to see you all soon. :)

[Astra]

Hey Astra, don't blame me. The trolls seemed hungry and I was simply giving them a bit of food. :-D

I still think that in certain terms, the context of this whole arguement is pretty ridiculous. I am fully willing to believe in the basic principles of evolution...just not in the absence of God, who is perfectly capable of using evolution as a creation tool.

I simply find it very difficult to believe that the universe, as complex as it is, all came together by happenstance.

Maybe so, but it did keep them chewing for a couple of days anyway. :smt118
I just don't understand why you felt the need to post something like that. I know from your other posts that you're a really intelligent person, so it didn't make any sense to me why you would post something, that to me anyway, was so off-base. The "trolls" aren't the only ones that read it., after all. I'm sorry if I got upset with you, but this thread gets confusing enough without having additional misinformation brought in.

Sorry to snippy your post but this is the point I want to address. Reducing the discussion to Creationists and atheists is incorrect. There are TEs of many religions and creeds, and I believe I posted earlier that some of the more powerful and effective Evolution advocates on Christianforums, where Valkhorn, Pete and I post, are TEs.

And I'm very much aware of that, but was trying to keep it in simple terms. Trying to get my point across about the two extremes was hard enough without trying to factor in the middle (there also haven't been many posting here, so I was trying to address the main parties). Just a clarification.

[Blasko]

"The trouble is we probably know more about the evolution of extinct trilobites than we do about human evolution" (Douglas Palmer paleontologist, New Scientist, March, 2002).Found the paragraph in question in the New Scientist archives (http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg17323344.300-one-great-leap-for-humankind.html). WHILE fluffy dinosaurs steal the limelight, we need to remind ourselves that there is more to fossils than agreeing whether or not <it>Tyrannosaurus rex</it> could run. Not that I have anything against dinosaurs, but the fossil record is still largely untapped. Far fewer than 0.1 per cent of existing fossils have been recovered from the rocks. The trouble is we probably know more about the evolution of extinct trilobites than we do about human evolution.

First we need to understand the historical and environmental context of fossils. Regional or continental syntheses of geology might not be particularly trendy. Most geologists have bad memories of lectures running endlessly through the 4.6 billion years of the geological record from the Precambrian to the Quaternary. Fortunately, this area is well served with recent volumes such as <it>The Geological History of Britain and Ireland</it> and a forthcoming new edition of <it>The Geology of Scotland</it>. ...
Out of context, the quote is a ridicule of anthropologists: 'Human evolution, which is so often held up as evidence for evolution, is less well understood than the evolution of long dead arthropods. I thought human evolution was one of the strongest evidences! (It is. A lesser known fact is that trilobite evolution is even stronger). Ergo, evolutionists know shite about human evolution'.

Creationists do this without mentioning the context. In context, it can be seen that the author meant 'we know more about the evolution of trilobites than human evolution because there are more fossils of trilobites'. The author actually explains this a sentence beforehand, yet creationists continually misquote it. Why? Accident? Poor-reading comprehension? Willful deceit?

There are some very good reasons why trilobite fossils are abundant. Trilobites have been around on Earth for more than 295 million years. The great apes have been around for a sliver of that time. Trilobites also lived in a diversity of marine environments across the world compared to our ancestors who stayed in only Africa for a very long time indeed. Thirdly, the vast majority of fossils are of marine organisms because they tend to get covered with sediment faster and do not decompose as easily.

We don't have as many fossils as the trilobites to help pin down the exact lineages. Unfortunately for creationists, the ape fossils we do have are more than enough to infer that homo sapiens sapiens did evolve.

By the way, why didn't creationists also include the sentence above the quote in question: Not that I have anything against dinosaurs, but the fossil record is still largely untapped. Far fewer than 0.1 per cent of existing fossils have been recovered from the rocks. The trouble is we probably know more about the evolution of extinct trilobites than we do about human evolution.Might it be because that statement there supports our position? Selectively picking out quotes only makes you look worse.

[rjw]

"The other problem is [Johnson's book is] pretty dated by now and has nothing on various developments in biology (i.e. genomics) from the last 10 years or so. I probably sound like a broken record by now, but I really think that anyone who seriously investigates modern biology, evolutionary theory, and its application will have a hard time rejecting it."

"a hard time rejecting it" ?? Neo-darwinism is as firmly grounded on Jell-o like never before, and it's not only non-darwinists like myself (I have a graduate degree in zoology from an accredited university and have published in a peer-reviewed journal) that are saying so. I urge PeteH to "seriously investigate" the 2nd ed of Levinton's book on Macroevolution (2001). No facts of macroevolution. None.

I've almost finished Mark Ridley's Evolution 2004 (2nd ed, Oxford Readers). There's no facts of macroevolution. None.

Then there's Gould's formidable Structure of Evolutionary Theory (2002)that I'm also finishing. No facts of macroevolution. None. As PeteH says, "I probably sound like a broken record by now . . ."

darwinists rely on natural selection and purely random genetic mistakes. I quote from Paul Ehrlich (Human Natures), "Because mutations are random relative to need and because organisms generally fit well into their environments, mutations normally are either neutral or harmful; only very rarely are they helpful - just as a random change made by poking a screwdriver into the guts of your computer will rarely improve its performance" p. 21. The faith of the macroevolutionist . . . .

Human evolution is serious trouble . . . again. Specifically, we don't know anything about it, "The trouble is we probably know more about the evolution of extinct trilobites than we do about human evolution" (Douglas Palmer paleontologist, New Scientist, March, 2002). Colbert (2001) says, "Perhaps no aspect of evolution has received such intense study as human evolution, yet this is a subject concerning which there is much debate, and about which there is much still to be learned" p. 348. In May, 2001 evolutionist Meg Rudolph called Australopithecus a "hodge-podge genus" (Geotimes, p. 7). The latest scientific discovery (PNAS April 2007, pp. 6568-72) removes the coveted Australopithecus afarensis (e.g. Lucy) from the human line! These findings of evolutionist Yoel Rak, "cast doubt on the role of A. afarensis as a modern human ancestor" (Science News v. 171). People have always been . . . . people.

Molecular evolution? Forget it. Atheist James Trefil said, "I am skeptical of arguments, like those of the molecular biologists, based on long strings of theoretical assumptions" (1996, p. 269). This is also true in plants, "This early assurance now appears to be wrong, and molecular data are in fact subject to most of the same problems that morphological data are" (Judd, et al., 1999 Sinauer Associates, Inc., p. 93). This 'fossils vs. molecules' confrontation is an "often polarized debate" according to atheist R.L. Cann (Quarterly Review of Biology, June, '06, p. 168). Atheist Peter Forey of London's Natural History Museum said the molecular evidence is "fraught with difficulties of interpretation" (J. of Paleontology 77(1)).

Meanwhile there are natural limits to biological change. No matter how much we mutate Drosophila (since 1910), they stubbornly remain fruit flies. Antibiotic-resistant bacteria remain the same species. Pesticide-resistant insects remain the same species. The missing links are . . . well, missing.

It's getting better 'n better for The Alternative to darwinism!

Gidday Scotz

Out of curiosity, what are you looking for when you use the word “facts” as in “No facts of macroevolution. None.”<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p

With respect to your use of quotes, I can scan the Web and find links to people who say that the facts show the earth to be flat, the earth to be spherical, the earth to be in the center of the universe, the earth to be at no special place, that HIV causes AIDS that HIV does not cause AIDS.

<O:p</O:pThus, being able to quote others can mean very little. It depends. On another forum, we have a guy who argues that the sun revolves around the earth. His arguments appear to be nothing more that cut 'n pastes of text from other sites he appears to understand little about. Would you then agree that because he can find plenty of sites that deny relativity, argue for the reality of the aether, deny the reality of a sun centered solar system, that it is reasonably certain that the sun does orbit the earth?

Maybe you would agree with this person, but if you do not, then I see very little difference between his cut 'n paste and your extensive use of quotes.

<O:p</O:pMolecular evolution? Given that scientists operating at the level of genes and proteins are, within the Darwinian paradigm, beginning to find plausible pathways in which fairly complex molecular systems can evolve (for example hormone/receptor - lock/key systems), why do you seemingly dismiss Darwinian explanations out of hand?<O:p</O:p
<O:p</O:p


Regards, Roland<O:p</O:p<O:p</O:p
<!-- / message --><!-- #### SHOW REPUTATION GIVEN IN POST START - BY LEVI THORNTON #### -->

[USincognito]

Unraveling the origin of the multicellular animals (metazoans) has presented many problems for zoologists (p. 240).

... one of the most intriguing questions is the place of mesozoans in the evolutionary picture (p. 242).

Metazoans

http://www.tolweb.org/Animals/2374
At least 50 articles and books on how the phylogenies were constructed for metazoans, some published before your textbook, many after and a quick check of one finds the full article availible for anyone.
Ayala, F. J., A. Rzhetsky, and F. J. Ayala. 1998. Origin of the metazoan phyla: Molecular clocks confirm paleontological estimates. PProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (USA) 95:606-611.
Article (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/2/606)
And another article found digging on PubMed
Bilaterian Phylogeny (http://www.springerlink.com/content/ll3p7fbl0n7n2q6l/)

The origin of the cnidarians and ctenophores [comb jellies] is obscure (p. 275).

Cnidarians and Ctenophores

http://www.tolweb.org/Cnidaria/2461
Again, at least 50 references.
http://www.tolweb.org/Ctenophora/2462
The references aren't as impressive on this one. ;)
I did find this interesting article on a fossil comb jelly find in China from 2007 though that sheds light on metazoan and ctenophore evolution.
Article (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/15/6289)

Any ancestral or other related group that would shed a clue to the phyletic [evolutionary] relationships of the Acanthocephala is probably long since extinct(p. 317).

This is little more than an admission that sometimes we simply are going to come up empty with our searches. Seems there is work in the area though.

Acanthocephala

http://www.tolweb.org/Acanthocephala
And a 2000 article (sorry, I only have access to the abstract) where the phylogenetic relationships of Acanthocephala are studied.
Article (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=10835483&query_hl=24&itool=pubmed_docsum)

No truly satisfactory explanation has yet been given for the origins of metamerism [segmentation] and the coelom [a fluid-filled cavity], although the subject has stimulated much speculation and debate over the years (p. 365).

What can we infer about the common ancestor of the annelids [earthworms]? This has been the subject of a long and continuing debate (p. 365).

Segmentation and Annelids
http://www.tolweb.org/Annelida/2486
Yes, a lot of questions remain, but there's a lot of work that has been done and is going on.

Coelom
A PubMed search also reveals a bunch of recent articles on the evolution of the coelom recently.
Search Results (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Search&db=pubmed&term=coelom+evolution&tool=fuzzy&ot=coelom+evolution)

Controversy on phylogeny [evolution] within the Chelicerata [arthropods] also exists ... (p. 379).

Arthropods

http://www.tolweb.org/Arthropoda/2469

The relationship of the crustaceans to other arthropods has long been a puzzle(p. 399).

Crustaceans to arthropods
Looks like this one is still problematic.

http://www.tolweb.org/Crustacea/2529

(more later)

[USincognito]

And I'm very much aware of that, but was trying to keep it in simple terms. Trying to get my point across about the two extremes was hard enough without trying to factor in the middle (there also haven't been many posting here, so I was trying to address the main parties). Just a clarification.

I'm sorry about wording my post so that it seemed more like a direct reply to you than a general comment to anyone reading the thread. :)

----------------------------------- (spacer, separate reply for Scotz)

Before I leave work and lose it, here's an article I found on The origin and evolution of animal appendages.
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/94/10/5162

[aaron]

So, do you believe humans came from apes or not? I mean, I have several posts here about the similarities and how plenty of scientists think so, blah, blah, blah. But, I also have people telling me that believing evolution is not believing that we came from apes. Which is it? The two seem to go hand in hand. And I can't hold an evolution conversation without the atheist bringing up facts about ape/man relationship.

[USincognito]

So, do you believe humans came from apes or not? I mean, I have several posts here about the similarities and how plenty of scientists think so, blah, blah, blah. But, I also have people telling me that believing evolution is not believing that we came from apes. Which is it? The two seem to go hand in hand. And I can't hold an evolution conversation without the atheist bringing up facts about ape/man relationship.

Aaron, can I ask you a favor? If you're asking a specific person "do you believe" can you quote that specific person so that person can respond to your question instead of it seeming to be an open question?

That requested, here's my answer to your post.

No, I don't "believe humans came from apes" for several reasons, some of which might seem semantic, but they are germaine to this discussion.
- Humans phylogenetically are apes. Not in the laymans use of the term, but using the characteristics which determine classification for where species fit in phylogenies. I noted in post 688 how humans fall under Hominidae and Catarrhini, placing us with our fellow great apes in a common taxa.
http://www.myhattiesburg.com/forums/showpost.php?p=229337&postcount=688
Please take the links I provided in that post to show you the evidence supporting said classification.
- I do not believe humans "come from apes" because of the evidence I cited above. There isn't a faith component to it, the evidence is clear and obvious.
- Again, it might seem like semantics, but if you look at the evidence used to develop the phylogenies humans didn't come from what are the layman's "apes", i.e. chimps, gorillas and orangutans. We developed from a common ancestor that produced orangutans, gorillas, and eventually chimps and humans.
- What does your mention of "the atheist" have to do with anything? There are many TEs who accept hominoid evolution so I can't see how injecting religion into the issue does anything more than conflates it with religion when the issue is ultimately the evidence?

[Blasko]

So, do you believe humans came from apes or not? I mean, I have several posts here about the similarities and how plenty of scientists think so, blah, blah, blah. But, I also have people telling me that believing evolution is not believing that we came from apes. Which is it? The two seem to go hand in hand. And I can't hold an evolution conversation without the atheist bringing up facts about ape/man relationship.From personal experience, the theistic evolution community seems split about the issue of human evolution. There are people who believe that two people are the founders of the human species. There are people who take it as an allegory, or perhaps a representation of the true story of sin entering the world through humans. And there is a range of people who take a middle position, such as Adam and Eve existed but other people were around at the time.

The majority of TEists that visit the forum that I go to believe in a literal Adam and Eve, but a significant minority don't.

I've found that if I examine all the evidence impartially (as best I can) and studiously, there doesn't seem to be a reason to reject human evolution when the rest of the natural world undergoes the same process.

[aaron]

So, it's your contention that if you truly believe in evolution (and not some weird mix of evolution and religion), that you believe that humans came from apes.

[Printz]

So, do you believe humans came from apes or not? I mean, I have several posts here about the similarities and how plenty of scientists think so, blah, blah, blah. But, I also have people telling me that believing evolution is not believing that we came from apes. Which is it? The two seem to go hand in hand. And I can't hold an evolution conversation without the atheist bringing up facts about ape/man relationship.

The short answer is humans and apes share a common ancestor.

Humans and snails also share a common ancestor, but farther back along the family tree. Monkeys are closer, Gorillas closer still, Chimpanzees and Bonobos closest.

We didn't evolve from monkeys/apes. Monkeys/Apes/Humans evolved from a shared relative that split into several different forms.

[aaron]

The short answer is humans and apes share a common ancestor.

Humans and snails also share a common ancestor, but farther back along the family tree. Monkeys are closer, Gorillas closer still, Chimpanzees and Bonobos closest.

We didn't evolve from monkeys/apes. Monkeys/Apes/Humans evolved from a shared relative that split into several different forms.

Technically yes, but it was a ancestor that looked like an ape. Yes, I know that evolutionists think we all came from a rock originally. What I don't know is why they are so hesitant to say it. There's this half and half that I think is being pushed so theists will go halfway.

[Chalnoth]

Okay, I've been reading this thread for a while now, and I just have to respond to this.

So, it's your contention that if you truly believe in evolution (and not some weird mix of evolution and religion), that you believe that humans came from apes.
It's not about belief. It's about evidence. You shouldn't be listening to what anybody says happened. If you really are interested in what did happen, you should be looking at the evidence. And we have multiple, independent lines of evidence that demonstrate, quite conclusively, that humans and the rest of life on this Earth are members of the same family.

Here, in video form (4 minutes long), is a small piece of the evidence we have for humans and other apes having a common ancestry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

(This is a part of a much longer talk, which you can view in full here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg))

Now, this is but one of many markers in our genetic code that link us as being cousins with the other apes. Also of interest are the GULO pseudo gene. This is a gene that is responsible for the creation of vitamin C in most mammals, but it is broken in primates. There are multiple proteins that are responsible for this mechanism of producing vitamin C (four if I remember correctly). In primates, the gene for one of these proteins has a single base pair missing. This single missing base pair breaks the gene, so that it cannot produce a working protein. Thus, all primates have to ingest their vitamin C. All primates have the same gene broken in the same place. We all have the genes there to produce vitamin C, but they're broken. How could you possibly explain this except by the fact that we all share a common ancestry?

Another piece of genetic evidence is found in endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). ERV's are essentially evidence of a failed virus infection: if a retrovirus mutates in the wrong way upon inserting itself, it won't replicate and kill the cell it has infected, making the virus inert. The virus then just sits there in the DNA of the cell and becomes an inert piece of genetic material: a marker of a past infection. Thus, we can tell that two different cells must have been descended from the same ancestor if they retain the same infection.

In multicellular organisms like ourselves, this infection will only be passed down if the infected cell was in the germ line (it, or one of its descendants, became a sperm or egg cell that later became a full-grown adult). This makes such failed infections exceedingly rare, allowing us to trace lineages over millions of years.

And, when we look, we find that we share a great many such infections with other apes. In fact, the infection pattern is exactly what you would expect from us being cousins, such that these ERV's only exist in the following pattern (among those that are seen in humans):
1. Human-only.
2. Human and chimpanzee.
3. Human, chimpanzee, and gorilla.
4. Human, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan.
(and so on to more distantly-related species)

This is an indication of how long ago the viral infection happened. If, for example, the failed infection occurred in humans after they split from chimpanzees, and that particular ancestor happened to have his/her genes dominate the population later on, then that ERV will exist only in human genetic code. If it happened before our split from chimpanzees, but after the split from gorillas, then it will exist in chimpanzees and humans and that is all. And this is exactly what we see. We do not see, for example, some ERV's shared between humans and chimpanzees, while others are shared just between humans and gorillas. Thus we can rule out parallel transmission as explaining these genetic markers.

You can read more on the subject here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses

Technically yes, but it was a ancestor that looked like an ape. Yes, I know that evolutionists think we all came from a rock originally. What I don't know is why they are so hesitant to say it. There's this half and half that I think is being pushed so theists will go halfway.
Nobody believes we came from rocks. A more correct view of abiogenesis is that we came from a collection of complex organic molecules, molecules which both would have been produced in the early Earth (as the Miller-Urey experiment showed and later, more refined experiments have confirmed), and would have been delivered to the Earth on comets and asteroids (where they are produced by the interaction of UV light from the sun with the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen on the object). Rapid changes in temperature (such as meteor/asteroid impacts or the action of volcanic vents) can cause some of these molecules to form small proteins and short strands of RNA. We have found some small proteins/RNA strands that can self-replicate, and would serve as excellent candidates for the first precursor to life.

This is far from "coming from rocks", as rocks do not self replicate. Complex organic molecules, however, do.

[aaron]

Okay, I've been reading this thread for a while now, and I just have to respond to this.


It's not about belief. It's about evidence. You shouldn't be listening to what anybody says happened. If you really are interested in what did happen, you should be looking at the evidence. And we have multiple, independent lines of evidence that demonstrate, quite conclusively, that humans and the rest of life on this Earth are members of the same family.

Here, in video form (4 minutes long), is a small piece of the evidence we have for humans and other apes having a common ancestry:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zi8FfMBYCkk

(This is a part of a much longer talk, which you can view in full here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg))

Now, this is but one of many markers in our genetic code that link us as being cousins with the other apes. Also of interest are the GULO pseudo gene. This is a gene that is responsible for the creation of vitamin C in most mammals, but it is broken in primates. There are multiple proteins that are responsible for this mechanism of producing vitamin C (four if I remember correctly). In primates, the gene for one of these proteins has a single base pair missing. This single missing base pair breaks the gene, so that it cannot produce a working protein. Thus, all primates have to ingest their vitamin C. All primates have the same gene broken in the same place. We all have the genes there to produce vitamin C, but they're broken. How could you possibly explain this except by the fact that we all share a common ancestry?

Another piece of genetic evidence is found in endogenous retroviruses (ERVs). ERV's are essentially evidence of a failed virus infection: if a retrovirus mutates in the wrong way upon inserting itself, it won't replicate and kill the cell it has infected, making the virus inert. The virus then just sits there in the DNA of the cell and becomes an inert piece of genetic material: a marker of a past infection. Thus, we can tell that two different cells must have been descended from the same ancestor if they retain the same infection.

In multicellular organisms like ourselves, this infection will only be passed down if the infected cell was in the germ line (it, or one of its descendants, became a sperm or egg cell that later became a full-grown adult). This makes such failed infections exceedingly rare, allowing us to trace lineages over millions of years.

And, when we look, we find that we share a great many such infections with other apes. In fact, the infection pattern is exactly what you would expect from us being cousins, such that these ERV's only exist in the following pattern (among those that are seen in humans):
1. Human-only.
2. Human and chimpanzee.
3. Human, chimpanzee, and gorilla.
4. Human, chimpanzee, gorilla, and orangutan.
(and so on to more distantly-related species)

This is an indication of how long ago the viral infection happened. If, for example, the failed infection occurred in humans after they split from chimpanzees, and that particular ancestor happened to have his/her genes dominate the population later on, then that ERV will exist only in human genetic code. If it happened before our split from chimpanzees, but after the split from gorillas, then it will exist in chimpanzees and humans and that is all. And this is exactly what we see. We do not see, for example, some ERV's shared between humans and chimpanzees, while others are shared just between humans and gorillas. Thus we can rule out parallel transmission as explaining these genetic markers.

You can read more on the subject here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section4.html#retroviruses


Nobody believes we came from rocks. A more correct view of abiogenesis is that we came from a collection of complex organic molecules, molecules which both would have been produced in the early Earth (as the Miller-Urey experiment showed and later, more refined experiments have confirmed), and would have been delivered to the Earth on comets and asteroids (where they are produced by the interaction of UV light from the sun with the carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen on the object). Rapid changes in temperature (such as meteor/asteroid impacts or the action of volcanic vents) can cause some of these molecules to form small proteins and short strands of RNA. We have found some small proteins/RNA strands that can self-replicate, and would serve as excellent candidates for the first precursor to life.

This is far from "coming from rocks", as rocks do not self replicate. Complex organic molecules, however, do.

1. Since you didn't see it happen, it's about belief. We've went over this, please reread the thread.

2. Meteor, asteroids, volcanic ash? Rocks and gas.

[Chalnoth]

1. Since you didn't see it happen, it's about belief. We've went over this, please reread the thread.
Did you even read the evidence? Can you explain these genetic markers in any other way than common ancestry? Simply handwaving it away with the statement, "Well, nobody was there, so we can't be sure," indicates that you just haven't paid any attention at all to the evidence.

Yes, my post was quite long. But it's not like this is easy stuff. Piecing together the distant past is not a simple task, so it takes a bit of thought and a bit of work. I hope you would at least take the time to take a look at the 4-minute video I linked above, even if you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of the evidence presented.

2. Meteor, asteroids, volcanic ash? Rocks and gas.
Rocks are typically made of metals and silicates. These things do not form organic life, which is made primarily of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. The term "rock" is therefore highly misleading.

[aaron]

Did you even read the evidence? Can you explain these genetic markers in any other way than common ancestry? Simply handwaving it away with the statement, "Well, nobody was there, so we can't be sure," indicates that you just haven't paid any attention at all to the evidence.

Yes, my post was quite long. But it's not like this is easy stuff. Piecing together the distant past is not a simple task, so it takes a bit of thought and a bit of work. I hope you would at least take the time to take a look at the 4-minute video I linked above, even if you couldn't be bothered to read the rest of the evidence presented.


Rocks are typically made of metals and silicates. These things do not form organic life, which is made primarily of carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen. The term "rock" is therefore highly misleading.


1. Gaps in evidence

2. How do you know they do not form organic life?

[Chalnoth]

1. Gaps in evidence
What gaps? Where are the gaps in the evidence I presented?

2. How do you know they do not form organic life?
Organic = carbon chemistry. So by definition molecules other than carbon could not form organic life. Other forms of life may be possible, but life in general requires a certain degree of complexity in the chemistry that makes that life up. As a result, metals and silicates, the components that make up most rocks, are poorly-suited for life.

[threekidspa]

Did you even read the evidence? Can you explain these genetic markers in any other way than common ancestry? Simply handwaving it away with the statement, "Well, nobody was there, so we can't be sure," indicates that you just haven't paid any attention at all to the evidence.

Chalnoth, the problem is, your case is far from a slam-dunk. There are other ways to interpret the evidence you offered. For example, the failed viral infections could have been caused by a more general viral infection that impacted multiple species (this would also offer a better explanation as to why it failed in the first place... if it were specific to a certain type of host, you'd expect it to fail if it were inserted into those that it wasn't specific to). Second, we're finding out that we're not nearly as closely related to what we thought were early homo-sapiens, who we have supposedly evolved from, than we originally thought. Finally, with the large percentage of junk DNA available, large intersections of similar DNA across competely different species are not uncommon.

I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of genetics is sketchy. But I can talk more about your asteroid theory, which is pure conjecture. The astronomical data does not support that theory at all. Even with this kind of genetic 'seeding', the information exchange would have had to have happened before our current solar system existed (and our galaxy for that matter) to allow time for the evolutionary process to get us to where we are today. Furthermore, there would have had to have been an evolutionary process to get from the original building block (Hydrogen) to the molecular forms that made up the seeds. There does not exist enough time (from the established beginning of the universe to when this seeding would have had to take place) for the evolution to have happened.

So there are still huge gaps in the evolutionary model that you can't just wave your hand over (just as you don't want Christians to do the 'God did it' hand waves).

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth, the problem is, your case is far from a slam-dunk. There are other ways to interpret the evidence you offered. For example, the failed viral infections could have been caused by a more general viral infection that impacted multiple species (this would also offer a better explanation as to why it failed in the first place... if it were specific to a certain type of host, you'd expect it to fail if it were inserted into those that it wasn't specific to). Second, we're finding out that we're not nearly as closely related to what we thought were early homo-sapiens, who we have supposedly evolved from, than we originally thought. Finally, with the large percentage of junk DNA available, large intersections of similar DNA across competely different species are not uncommon.
Nope. That doesn't explain it.

The problem is, there are many thousands of sights on the DNA which RNA viruses insert themselves. As a result, it is highly unlikely to see two separate infections in the same location, let alone the same virus at the same location.

Additionally, one would expect an entirely different pattern if this were explained by parallel infections. Specifically, one would expect that geographical location, not phylogeny, would be the determiner of which species share which infections. Furthermore, one would expect frequent violations of the nested hierarchy. Specifically, if there were any viruses that crossed species and left markers in this way, one would expect to find some that were shared between only humans and chimpanzees, and others that were shared only between humans and gorillas. This just does not happen, so we have a wholly independent method to confirm the results of this particular piece of evidence.

Finally, this is but one piece of evidence among many. I would probably agree with you that the evidence could be interpreted in some other way if we only had ERV evidence. But this just isn't the case. We're not talking about a house of cards here, but a massive, overly-built structure, where knocking out nine tenths of the supports still leaves the structure standing. The evidence for human evolution really is that compelling, not because one piece is so strong (even though the ERV evidence itself is quite strong), but because of the large variety of independent, corroborating evidence.

I'll be the first to admit my knowledge of genetics is sketchy. But I can talk more about your asteroid theory, which is pure conjecture. The astronomical data does not support that theory at all. Even with this kind of genetic 'seeding', the information exchange would have had to have happened before our current solar system existed (and our galaxy for that matter) to allow time for the evolutionary process to get us to where we are today. Furthermore, there would have had to have been an evolutionary process to get from the original building block (Hydrogen) to the molecular forms that made up the seeds. There does not exist enough time (from the established beginning of the universe to when this seeding would have had to take place) for the evolution to have happened.
Uh, you're misunderstanding what is being claimed. Nobody is supporting any sort of "information seeding". Information, by the way, is not a conserved quantity to be exchanged. But that's another matter. The physical process is that the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen in these meteors and comets undergoes reactions due to the bombardment of UV light from the sun. These reactions form complex organic compounds, such as nucleotides and amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, DNA, and RNA. Further interactions are required to produce the wholly more complex self-replicating compounds that are necessary for life.

So there are still huge gaps in the evolutionary model that you can't just wave your hand over (just as you don't want Christians to do the 'God did it' hand waves).
Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that what we do know is insufficient. Do you, for example, need to fully understand the workings of a CPU to make use of a computer?

[Hermione]

BrentG, have you mentioned what you do in your "free time"?? ;)
How was your semester, btw?
[apologies for going off topic]

[just-Wynn]

Do you, for example, need to fully understand the workings of a CPU to make use of a computer? You might not have to, but someone has to. :police:

[threekidspa]

Uh, you're misunderstanding what is being claimed. Nobody is supporting any sort of "information seeding". Information, by the way, is not a conserved quantity to be exchanged. But that's another matter. The physical process is that the carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, and hydrogen in these meteors and comets undergoes reactions due to the bombardment of UV light from the sun. These reactions form complex organic compounds, such as nucleotides and amino acids, the building blocks of proteins, DNA, and RNA. Further interactions are required to produce the wholly more complex self-replicating compounds that are necessary for life.?

I do understand what is being claimed here, and time required for solar/stellar reactions to produce the carbon, nytrogen and oxygen you need starting from simple Hydrogen (which is all there was to begin with) is so long that there is no room left for us. That glove doesn't fit.

Just because we don't know everything doesn't mean that what we do know is insufficient. Do you, for example, need to fully understand the workings of a CPU to make use of a computer?

No, I don't, but I am also fully aware of its purpose and limitations, and am careful to use it with those things in mind. The same care should be taken with evolution, otherwise....garbage in, garbage out....

[Chalnoth]

I do understand what is being claimed here, and time required for solar/stellar reactions to produce the carbon, nytrogen and oxygen you need starting from simple Hydrogen (which is all there was to begin with) is so long that there is no room left for us. That glove doesn't fit.
Huh? To produce carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen? Those elements were around before our solar system formed, having been produced in previous supernovae. I'm talking about molecules here, not nuclear reactions.

No, I don't, but I am also fully aware of its purpose and limitations, and am careful to use it with those things in mind. The same care should be taken with evolution, otherwise....garbage in, garbage out....
What reason do you have to expect that scientists who dedicate their lives to the study of evolution, human and otherwise, are any different?

[Scotz]

Well, after viewing the many