Evolution

[someguy]

What do these "creationists" say about fossils then out of interest?

Early on fossils were the devils work to some.Sharks teeth were fangs of the devil. Even earlier some early greek philosophers said that the rocks had grown bones. I can't remeber which one said that. If only I had my notes wwith me from Historical Geology.
As to what rmcrobertson said. Really you should go read Stephen Jay Gould. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ have fun.
Faith cannot deafeat facts or facts faith unless a person opens there mind to both. There is a time for both.
"by the doctrine of the cross, after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God." (1 Corinthians 1:21.) Yes I'm using the bible to prove my point but think about it. How can conventional wisdom know about that which goes beyond this world. At the same time if God wanted us to know everything about this world with out us having to work for it then we would know it.

 

[Cryozombie]

The problem, fundamentally, T'punk and SW, is that you simply do not know what science is.

Actually Robert, the problem is you are lumping my Arguments and ShaolinWolf's together, and taking much of what I said out of context.

It would be easier for you to help me understand where I am wrong, if you address my issues, insted of simply insulting me and telling me I am wrong because of some things ShaolinWolf said.

With the exception of your misconstured notion that I think Evolution is fake because of a "Cheesy" Tv show... very little in that last post actually pertained to anything I have said. They were SW's arguments.

I have said, I am willing to learn more about this, if you point me in the right direction, and show me the data. Not obscure references Robert, hard Links to direct data my lazy *** can click on and read. I dont want to hunt for bits and pieces of what is supposed to be such an obvious truth, there should be an easy place to see it, please provide it, if you can. My mind is not "made up" or closed by any means... not nearly as much as everyone else on both sides of this thread...

SW says "Science is wrong because god is right" and you couldnt show him evidence to change that veiw, even tho he has no more proof than the Bible which was written by men, not god. (yes, I am christian but I do not believe the bible is the "Divine word of god")

Heretic and Robert feel "Scientists who are part of the religious right are jokes" therefore their science is bad... and cannot possibly be valid...

I SAY "Im looking for more proof i havnt seen enough to convince me! Show me more!"

And yet i am the wacky one?

Haha. You guys kill me.

And you know whats funnyest about the whole thing? I havn't argued "Creationism is right, Evolution is wrong" but you all are assuming that is what I believe, and instead of answering my questions and addressing my issues you are ignoring my comments looking for a bigger better explaination of evolutionary proof... and attacking my understanding of the world. Cute. What that tells me is that you CAN'T answer them, not that you WON'T.

Lets try something here... I know it may be difficult, because everyone is so..."uppity"

Lets redirect this thread. Questions and answers with the emotions Removed. I'll Start.

Regarding the evidence to Support Human Evolution: The Fossil record shows That there Were "Apes", that there were then a series of "Hominids" and lastly "Man"

The problems I see with this are twofold...

1) Datings of the fossils. There is controversy in the scientific community over the accuracy of radiocarbon dating, specificaly as the samples get older... it can be estimated on younger samples of an error rate somewhere in the 50 year range, but they believe that as the sample ages that range MAY expand. But if we are going to assume that the dating process is reletivly accurate, some of the "less evolved" hominids are actually "newer" fossils than some of the old ones, which would suggest that we were either "devolving" at that point or they are not part of the same evolutionary chain and should not be used as "missing links" therein.

2) The methods used by many of the Scientists to find and identify the links in the chain of Hominid evolution are based on partial bone/skull fragments to indentify a unique or new Hominid "species". However, when researchers such as Oxnard attempted to disprove the theory his opponents claimed his research was inaccurate because he used "partial bone/skull fragments" Scientifically, can you have it one way and not the other, and still be... uh... whats the word... impartial? No... Well, I think you understand what I mean...

Can you point me to some links that might overcome those arguments for starters?

 

[Cryozombie]

As to what rmcrobertson said. Really you should go read Stephen Jay Gould. http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ have fun.

I was reading a lot of what Gould said on that page, and althought I have only read 4 or 5 of the essays so far, they bring up other questions for me.

In one study, he claims they have Ample Evidence in the field of evolution, and goes on to cite black moths. He states that when ash covered the trees the black moths were better hidden from predators therefore that is the species that dominated and survived. Later in the same essay he goes on to say that many "creationists" claim a silly notion that evolution is possible, but a Dog or a Cat or a Monkey cannot become a Human.

But what I guess I missed, or don't understand is that Genetically speaking, because there were more black moths breeding, ergo that population thrived,as opposed to the white ones which were being eaten, isn't that natural selection, as opposed to evolution? Just because one "color" trait breeds better, does not really change the genetic structure of a creature enough to support the idea that a Cat could become a human, does it?

I would think that that would be closer to saying "Genetics have shown that Dark Skinned people living in one concentrated area will breed with each other and produce more dark skinned offspring than light" Rather than "Genetics have shown that Dark Skinned people living in one concentrated area will breed with each other and produce offspring who are chimpanzees"

And I understand that the point of the article was not to say "The Moths Prove that an Ape can become Human" but he cited it as an ample example of evidence that evolution occurs and in the same article he said that based on the evidence it's silly to assume that an ape could not become human.

Also, in another of his articles, he basically stated that one day his compainon went, hey i know why there is no consistant fossil record, we didnt evolve slowly, but all at once! And he (Gould) expanded on the idea and got creative with it. He couldn't find a way to prove it with humans, tho, so he started working on snails. As of my reading so far, he hadn't proved it however. (maybe in a later essay, i am not that far)

But here is a prominent Evolutionist (NOT CREATIONSIT) saying Nope, the Fossil Record is incomplete but this is why it think evolution still happened, now i just need to prove it.

So that brings me back around to: Am I wrong when I say the Fossil record is incomplete? Gould would seem to be supporting that idea.

 

[someguy]

evolution can occur through 4 things or something like that. One is the fittest live so they continue to breed and those traits carry on. Theres also genetic drift. Let me think for a while longer and I might be able to think of the other two that were stated by some person that I heard about in a class. Man I'm specific today.

 

[arnisador]

Carbon dating works. Carbon dating doesnt work. There was a brontosaurus. There wasnt a brontosaurus. We landed on the moon. We didnt land on the moon it was a conspiracy.

These are your examples? Sheesh. First they said the moon was made of green cheese, now they say it isn't...

I am reminded of this story: Keynes, when admonished for being inconsistent, replied, "When someone convinces me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?"

From another post:

I SAY "Im looking for more proof i havnt seen enough to convince me! Show me more!"

There's enough proof out there to fill the Grand Canyon. Looking for accessible works? Gould, Dawkins, Mayr...

Isn't tracing DNA similarity, and knowing that we understand how mutations occur in DNA, enough?

Saying the fossil record is incomplete means we haven't found it all yet. The first dinosaur bones (that were recognized as such) were found about 200 years ago...give it time. How many field biologists/paleontologists do you suppose are working out there on this? Not as many as one would think from all teh discussion.

Suer, evolution could be wrong...Newtonian mechanics is (though it's still a good and widely-used approx.). But it's the only scientific explanation for the diversity of species and the resemblences between certain species.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Again: the problem is, you simply don't know what science is. If you think that the problem with science is that the fossil record is incomplete--well, you fundamentally misunderstand what science is (and what faith is) because, by definition, science is always incomplete.

Similarly, you don't seem to know what religion is. If you claim to be Christian, yet refuse the divinity of Biblical text...well, oops.

You live in an immense, beautiful, and mysterious universie. Why do you find that's so frightening--and it's not a merely rhetorical question, but one that's fundamental.

Fundamentalist Christianity teaches that the world began very recently, prehaps as recently as 4004 BC. Carbon, argon, or any other dating that tells you the world began 5 billion plus or minus whatever years ago ain't going to help you much in that argument.

Why are y'all content with such a tiny, small, petty little version of God?

 

[Cryozombie]

Again: the problem is, you simply don't know what science is.

Similarly, you don't seem to know what religion is.

Robert. Thanks for ignoring my questions.

Ive never blocked someone on a forum, congrats on being the first.

 

[Cryozombie]

These are your examples? Sheesh. First they said the moon was made of green cheese, now they say it isn't...

I am reminded of this story: Keynes, when admonished for being inconsistent, replied, "When someone convinces me that I am wrong, I change my mind. What do you do?"

Arnisador,

I was only using those as examples of things various branches of science and some nutcases (in the case of the moonlanding) choose to disagree on... I was not using them as examples of proof of evolutionism vs Creationism. I can provide different ones and sources if you would like. But do you at least agree that not every scientist agrees on all the data?

From another post:

There's enough proof out there to fill the Grand Canyon. Looking for accessible works? Gould, Dawkins, Mayr...

Isn't tracing DNA similarity, and knowing that we understand how mutations occur in DNA, enough?

Saying the fossil record is incomplete means we haven't found it all yet. The first dinosaur bones (that were recognized as such) were found about 200 years ago...give it time. How many field biologists/paleontologists do you suppose are working out there on this? Not as many as one would think from all teh discussion.

I understand that. however some prominent evolutionists including one you quoted as a source (Gould) doesn't believe we will find the rest of those fossils, because he believes we evolved "differently". I actually find some his ideas more plausable than the missing portions of the fossil record, simply because of some of the dating issues that would suggest less evolved fossils were newer than some of the more evolved ones, But by the same token, his resarch to support his ideas is imcomplete and many evolutionists disagree with it, and still think we will find those "missing links".

I'm just waiting.

Suer, evolution could be wrong...Newtonian mechanics is (though it's still a good and widely-used approx.). But it's the only scientific explanation for the diversity of species and the resemblences between certain species.

Absolutley. I agree that current science (that thing I have no idea what it is) has that as the best explaination for how and why we are here with other species on the planet... But keep in mind, just a couple hundered years ago, Current science thought leeches cured the sick... Maybe they havn't found somthing yet... that will either Definitivly prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, or completely discredit it... who's to say?

 

[someguy]

Evolution in all its trueth could well be something I could never really understand too much about anyways. I sure can't really understand much about Quantum phisics although I never really tried but physics was to annoying as it was. So proof of evolution may really be proving part of the trueth. Now of course yo can say that there is evolution i a sense but if there is an omnipotent God then well that goes into fate basically but I don't see a way around fate if there is an omniscientgod who created us all. As such I belive there is evolution but at the same time all of our actions have been decided and as such well in a way we are created. I don't exactly belive that the creation story should be taken litterally though. Take that for what its worth.

 

[Cobra]

Wait guys,

Just because the theory of evolution is true, which I believe is, doesn't mean it proves the theory creation is false too.

For example, we share 98% of our DNA with chimps and a close amount with other apes (not monkeys, apes). Heck, we are apes. That doesn't prove creation is wrong. That is how God created the world as people should see it.

Another example is embryology. Many say that animals such as chickens and turtles share a common ancestor because their embryos look almost identical in early development. Who knows, maybe they didn't. Does it say in the Bible that animals don't evolve? As far as the embryos being so identical, it could be as said before they may have come from a similar ancestor. Or maybe THAT IS THE WAY GOD CREATED THEM. Or, it could be both. Fossils are no difference in proof.

Carbon dating. It has told us the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Firstly, carbon dating is very unrelible. Second, even if the Earth was that old, where does it say in the Bible the Earth isn't that old? In the beginning, peharps the the days were actualy millions or billions of years.

You have to be fluent in both sides. Neither point is wrong, just gotta see the accuracy in both. I don't think we evolved from apes, but it doesn't mean Neantherdals never exsisted. Could be another creation by God.

 

[michaeledward]

For example, we share 98% of our DNA with chimps and a close amount with other apes (not monkeys, apes).

Yeah, and we share 95% of our DNA with a banana. It has to do with the fact that all organic life forms originated on this planet.

where does it say in the Bible the Earth isn't that old? In the beginning, peharps the the days were actualy millions or billions of years.

Add up the 'Begats'. Let's not forget that some of those Old Testament guys lived for 900 years, I love that part.

 

[Andi]

Originally Posted by Technopunk
So that brings me back around to: Am I wrong when I say the Fossil record is incomplete? Gould would seem to be supporting that idea.

The fossil record is demonstratably incomplete. The processes that lead to preservation of these structures, are heavily biased towards sedimentary, depositional, watery environments, preferably anoxic. Stuff on land just doesn't preserve as easily as stuff in the water, that's why most of the fossils we have are shells of various descriptions. The far greater availability of oxygen on land means decomposition is much more rapid.

I think it was a paper by Raup or Sepkoski or somebody twenty years ago that suggested that the percentage of animal life preserved in the fossil record could be as little as 5%, but probably lower. I don't think there's much debate on whether or not the fossil record is complete or not. Is there?

Originally Posted by Cobra
Carbon dating. It has told us the Earth is 4.6 billion years old. Firstly, carbon dating is very unrelible. Second, even if the Earth was that old, where does it say in the Bible the Earth isn't that old? In the beginning, peharps the the days were actualy millions or billions of years.

I just want to point out for clarity that it isn't Carbon dating that gives a date of 4.6 billion years- it was using...uhh...now my memory is getting a bit fuzzy but I think it was Samarium/Neodymium and Rubidium/Strontium isotopic dating on primitive meteorites- these isotopes have much longer half-lives than carbon (billions of years compared to about 50k years for carbon). I realise you may be just referring to all isotopic dating as carbon-dating as an umbrella term though.

Now, where in the bible does it say the Earth isn't that old? Well, in Genesis, I'm fairly certain that the word for day used in the original text was the word used specifically for 24-hour period. This seems to be why so many people point-blank refuse to take the 'creation week' as anything but a literal week. For me, I'm quite happy to treat the creation story as pictorial rather than literal.

I've never been able to bring myself to get too deeply immersed in the answers in genesis stuff because I seem to find too many instances of unscientific method straight away which puts me off looking at it properly! Maybe I should examine their "evidence" more thoroughly.

 

[Cryozombie]

The fossil record is demonstratably incomplete. The processes that lead to preservation of these structures, are heavily biased towards sedimentary, depositional, watery environments, preferably anoxic. Stuff on land just doesn't preserve as easily as stuff in the water, that's why most of the fossils we have are shells of various descriptions. The far greater availability of oxygen on land means decomposition is much more rapid.

I think it was a paper by Raup or Sepkoski or somebody twenty years ago that suggested that the percentage of animal life preserved in the fossil record could be as little as 5%, but probably lower. I don't think there's much debate on whether or not the fossil record is complete or not. Is there?
.

Well, I believe it was Robert who suggested, no wait, told me, I didnt know what i was talking about and I should read some of his sources before stating is was incomplete.

 

[arnisador]

But do you at least agree that not every scientist agrees on all the data?

Yes. That's usually the case; look at the disagreements over interpretations in quantum mechanics, for instance.

But finding a biologist who thinks that evolution is bad science is like finding one who thinks smoking cigarettes is good for your health. It can be done, but it's very hard. Note, many scientists who are religious may recognize evolution as good science but use their own version of Gould's "Non-Overlapping Magisteria" argument to simultaneously believe in a biblical view. Personally, I have no problem with this.

Remember, science is itself evolving theories. More data comes in, things get re-evaluated. Kuhn makes for excellent background reading on the general nature of this process.

There is a sociology of science/scientists. You can even major in it (often called something like Science and Technology Studies). Science is a human activity.

I'm just waiting.

If you applied this reasoning to the medicine based on evolutionary theory you'd be putting your health in danger, I imagine. (Why do we test things on animals? How can we justify that?) I daresay we understand evolution better than aerodynamacs--the underlying equations of fluid dynamics, Navier-Stokes etc., are very hard to solve--so there's better understanding of this than of flight. You're picking and choosing which results to accept, but they all come from the same general method.

Absolutley. I agree that current science (that thing I have no idea what it is) has that as the best explaination for how and why we are here with other species on the planet... But keep in mind, just a couple hundered years ago, Current science thought leeches cured the sick... Maybe they havn't found somthing yet... that will either Definitivly prove evolution beyond a shadow of a doubt, or completely discredit it... who's to say?

This is an argument against ever believing anything science produces. How can you say this, yet visit a physician? Antibiotics come from the same scientific method, applied in the same way. Why are they trustworthy? Because they seem to work? A biologist would say, so does evolution--it's a scientific theory that works to explain the world around us. A search on evolutionary medicine might also prove interesting; see also evolutionary psychology, which has become popular recently.

 

[Cryozombie]

This is an argument against ever believing anything science produces. How can you say this, yet visit a physician? Antibiotics come from the same scientific method, applied in the same way. Why are they trustworthy? Because they seem to work? A biologist would say, so does evolution--it's a scientific theory that works to explain the world around us. A search on evolutionary medicine might also prove interesting; see also evolutionary psychology, which has become popular recently.

Actually, I just don't think being skeptical hurts... I mean, Science can PROVE certain things, like, Why a Television works, so of course, I am going to believe that a televison works, and that I can see things that are far away. But Naturally I am going to be skeptical of say... Remote Viewing, the psychic ability to see things far away... But I wont discount the fact that some people claim its possible, I will just wait for stronger science to prove it. Remember, I never said I don't believe in evolution, I said I have a hard time with the concept that we were all one species, and eventually apes became man. But at the same time I'm thinking "tomorrow", we may uncover absolute proof to show it did happen, or maybe we will find an alien spacecraft frozen in the polar icecap with all the species inside that proves we didnt...

In the end, however... Regardless of whether my Ancestor was a monkey, Adam, or Glurg of the planet Bloogi, it makes no real difference, because I am here... I really don't think about it most of the time.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

Science = the religious faith of the new era?

Cute book called "the adventures of anybody" has a prince going on a guided tour of a distant, semi-enchanted land. They pass the clerics, who are identified as holding fiercely on to an outdated set of beliefs, even in the face of "evidence" (those poor, mislead souls, thinks the prince). Further in the woods, they pass the encampment of the Academics...the very ones who provided the evidence that tossed the clerics from their lofty heights, into the realm of being merely a faith. Prince asks guide, "Who tells these academics they are the one's who are right, or even on the right path?". The Guide replies, "They do. Just like the clerics."

Just reminded of it while reading this thread.

My own position: Science, mere decades ago, made assertions we now consider silly in the face of modern knowledge. Our best science today will someday be viewed as archaic and simple-minded. Creationist? Nope. Evolutionist? Nope. Each assumes we are asking the right questions then looks for answers to support either the stated position, or the null hypotheses; and I sincerely doubt we even know what the right questions are yet.

Old men arguing in a cave about what the world outside looks like: Religion. A couple old men in the argument posit that they could have a stronger, more valid understanding of life outside the cave by studying the dirt in the cave...the drawings on the cave wall...the elements composing the wall, and the laws governing the interaction of those elements: Science.

As long as we remain within the cave, true knowing is outside our reach, making the search a fun hobby, but nothing more substantial than that. The unknown is called that, because it is that...Unknown. The wisest of the religious will say, "we don't really know, and won't till we die". (How does one prove the existence of God? Simply saying we had to come from somewhere doesn't prove our own suspicion of what or whom that somewhere/someone is). The wisest of the scientists will say, "the more we learn, the more we realize we have learned nothing." (how does one prove 'brane theory, or the virtual/transient state of matter in quantum physics?)

My own ponderings,

Dave

 

[arnisador]

As long as we remain within the cave, true knowing is outside our reach, making the search a fun hobby, but nothing more substantial than that.

In a philosophical sense, perhaps. But in a practical sense, this "hobby" has put men on the moon, made it possible to cross oceans in hours by flight rather than weeks by boat, cured a variety of diseases, extended the average lifespan by about a factor of two, and made this form of communication possible. So, it is more substantial than that.

The success of these advances is evidence that the scientific method works, even if it doesn't work as rapidly and as cleanly as would be nice.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

In a philosophical sense, perhaps. But in a practical sense, this "hobby" has put men on the moon, made it possible to cross oceans in hours by flight rather than weeks by boat, cured a variety of diseases, extended the average lifespan by about a factor of two, and made this form of communication possible. So, it is more substantial than that.

The success of these advances is evidence that the scientific method works, even if it doesn't work as rapidly and as cleanly as would be nice.

And problematic. Many in medical research are looking for bigger and better ways to fight cancer, disease, etc. If we accept evolution, then science is destroying the gene pool by assisting the weak - who would otherwise be culled fro the human herd - to survive, and pass on their polluted genes. Science is helping to create a new generation of problems associated with overpopulation.

Crossin oceans in hours has assisted in the spread of diseases that kill. On a boat, the carriers would have passed, leaving the boat adrift until the bug itself decayed.

Lunar exploration has cost untold millions of dollars, and given us what, exactly? We have learned a lot about how bodies degrade and bean sprouts grow in zero gravity...find a lot of that here on earth?

Longer living people leads to increased resource consumption. Hmmm. Maybe not such a good idea on a planet with more people alive on it now, than in the entire recorded history of the planet added together, up to 1950-ish.

As for this form of communication, there is a richness in human conversation...a lost and nutritive art...that is not being enjoyed in all it's possible modalities by remaining seated at a computer terminal. Again, science as culprit in degradation of the quality of human experience.

My original point was that perspective and desire govern experience, and Truth (with a capital T) remains an unkown. The perspective of the cleric vs. scientist, and the desire to know what can't be known. Have scientific gains been beneficial? A matter of perspective. And in the long run, that's all we really have.

D.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Science is not based upon faith. If you think it is, you need to read up a little. Moreover, using Gould's discussions of evolution as grounds for arguing that evolution is only a belief is perverse in the extreme: that is, quite literally, the opposite of what Gould says, and says repeatedly.

Personally, individual beliefs are pretty much none of anybody's business. It's when creationists of various stripes start dismantling science education in public schools that I begin to get vexed. And it's when these attacks on science get linked to other claims about people, morality, politics and the rest that I start to take it personally.

And more generally, it's the unreason that these "arguments," demonstrate that is a little scary. Reason and logic are precious, and they were very hard-won, historically speaking: it is appalling to see so many people rejecting them, especially when they start saying--as several posters have here--that they don't need to actually know anything about what they're rejecting.

As for T'punk's issues with my not responding in ways he finds adequate to his interrogations, well, pots and kettles. Still waiting to read some response to questions about materialism and idealism, some acknowledgement that lots and lots of Christians don't see any conflict between the Bible and evolution, etc. But I don't recollect that there are any rules about having to respond to a damn thing.

And just incidentally, it might be helpful to acquire a little more knowledge of the creationist arguments. Among other things, they do indeed insist that the earth isn't anything like billions of years old, that the Great Flood dug little features like the Grand Canyon more or less overnight, and a bunch of other goofy notions. Like the one Gould mentions: there's apparently a big painting of one of Noah's kids feeding a brontosaur in the stables on the Ark hanging in the front lobby of the Institute for Creation Science.

Nor does the way that dating techniques are always expressed with a margin of error really help anybody prove that dating techniques are wrong about the age of the world.

Last, it is at best disingenuous to claim that the creationist attack on science education isn't in any way a religious and political attack. It is--if you'll read the examples a little--precisely an attempt to impose certain fundamentalist values in public schools. And it is--if you'll simply listen to what clowns like that Jay Sekula are saying--directly linked to the attempt to impose other ideas too. But that isn't my idea: it's theirs. Just listen to 'em.

It's such a petty, scared little view of the universe. I hope there is an afterlife, because if so, Mark Twain must be rolling in the aisles every time he lookss our way.

 

[Cobra]

But science doesn't have to prove faith is wrong. Every person is entitled to their beliefs, but just because something is that way on our planet, doesn't mean any of it is not explainable. Many people who have been converted to athiests have been saying to themselves for example "This doesn't make any sense, we are so close to chimps, so that means God never was there." Now how does that prove crap. That could be because God created apes so close to us. And, if you don't know enough on creation before you study evolution, you will come up with bull that God doesn't exsist. It has to do with the lack of knowlage.

As far as public schools and evolution, there is nothing wrong with teaching, it is science. But before teaching the so called history of the Earth, they should go over the theory of creation in public schools too. Some say that public schools shouldn't teach the theory of creation in school because it isn't based on science, but who are we to judge either way. Atleast teach a big amount of the theory of creation in a social studies class.