The Theory of Evolution

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Noone here was pinning their entire case on just sickle cell anemia. It was Rip who admitted sickle cell anemia demonstrated natural selection and was a good example on the broadness of the definition of "fit." We can argue back and forth over it's advantages or disadvantages all we want.

Sickle cell was only one of my examples but what about my other: The CCR5 mutation.

Edited for clarity

Found this explanation:

One of the most important and most studied cell receptors is the cell-surface chemokine receptor 5 (CCR5). CCR5 functions as a receptor for chemokines, and also affects a cell?s susceptibility to HIV infections (Schliekelman, et al., 2001). A mutation in the receptor that
leads to the loss of a 32 base-pair section (called a 32 mutation) results in a nonfunctional
receptor. As a result, the cell is largely immune to the AIDS virus. This mutation is believed to have been selected for in Europe during the last 700 years because it also evidently reduces susceptibility to bubonic plague (Schliekelman, et al., 2001). Schliekelman, et al. (2001) conclude that even heterozygous CCR5 carriers are completely resistant to the plague organism or similar pathogens. This damaged receptor also makes the cell less fit in a virus free environment, but in a pathogen-rich environment it can survive. Implications Recent research into the development of virus resistance does not support Neo-Darwinism which is classically defined as the natural selection of mutations. Macroevolution requires information-building mechanisms that add new information to DNA. In virtually all cases, resistance is a result of the exploitation of existing systems, or is due to a transfer of genes. In the rare cases where a mutation is involved, development of resistance involves only a loss mutation, such as a deformed cell receptor. This conclusion is confirmed by the fact that resistance is acquired very rapidly, in far too brief a period for the emergence of complex biochemical or physiological systems by evolution. Furthermore, mutation- caused resistance results in less viability in the wild and, as a result, the resistant strains cannot compete in a normal
environment (Spetner, 1997). The acquisition of resistance does not provide evidence for macroevolution, but rather provides support for intelligent design (Cornaglia, et al., 2000).

Link

Let's play a little game, shall we?

If I went to holocaust denier websites to investigate the activities at Auschwitz or Buchenwald, what sort of "analysis" do you think I would find concerning the gas chambers and the crematoria? Do you think the denier-advocate authors would just write, "You're right. The Nazis were gassing just as many Jews as they could, as fast as they could. And burning or burying the bodies. Exterminating Jews was their main goal"?

Or do you think there would be a highly slanted version of what went on in the camps, that made the events seem far more benign?

Similary, Rip, all you do is search your pro-Genesis, anti-evolution sites, and find fringe interpretations, WAY outside the mainstream of scientific research.

If you had any interest in objective truth, you'd be looking at what the scientific consensus is on these matters. You'd do a broad-based search. You wouldn't limit your search to sites that you and I and everyone else on these forums know ahead of time are going to offer a slanted view.

I guarantee that one can find opposing views on ANY scientific question. I guarantee you that there are PhDs in physics who think that General Relativity is a crock, and I'm sure I could post a couple of those articles here.

What would THAT prove? It would prove only that one can find views outside the consensus on any subject.

So why bother posting your articles? Just write, "Let's pretend I did a search. And let's imagine the predictable result is posted here." That approach would save a whole lot of wasted space.

Answer the following question:

DO YOU HAVE AN OPEN MIND ON THE SUBJECT OF BIOLOGICAL EVOLUTION?

If the answer is, "No", why bother with this sham?

If you ask me the equivalent question, "Do I have an open mind on ID?", my answer is, "If you provide me with falsifiable theories and relevant peer-reviewed experiments and empirical data that support ID, my mind will of course be open to it."

Tell you what, how about if we just stick to the facts and skip the fluff.

 

[shoegazer]

"I am not going to attempt to offer evidence for either case, but I do find it interesting that a huge percentage believe "unquestioningly" that evolution is 100% correct."

of course i don't and i'm sure most of the other evolution supporters don't think evolution is 100% correct. this is science. but, i've yet to see a scientific theory that better explains the diversity of life on this planet. ID is not a scientific theory because it isn't falsifiable.

and rip, respond to shira's posts.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin


If you want to point out evidence in the fossil record that supports macroevolution I'll be happy to try to offer a rebutal.

I didn't read the reference, but I suppose that it supports ID because it demonstrates the adptability of organisms inherent in their design.

You've already asked for 'transitional fossils' been given several examples (e.g. small raptors with feathers, strongly suggesting a link between dinosaurs and birds).

The answer to the second question is that the evidence neither supports nor detracts from ID, if that is, you first discount that it does support evolution: mutation causing functional changes, followed by selection and propogation.

The dinosaurs among us

But for all the evidence that points toward a dinosaurian origin of birds, the issue remains hotly debated. A vocal minority of paleontologists opposes the theory, disbelieving that birds could have possibly emanated from dinosaurs.

"I really think they're on thin ice at the moment," says Currie. "I think what it comes down to right now, that to convince the majority of paleontologists that birds don't come from dinosaurs they're going to have to either turn it around and say that dinosaurs came from birds, or alternatively, they're going to have to find some fossils that convincingly show you have something that's not a dinosaur and yet is something that has enough characters to show it could be ancestral to birds. The trouble is if they find something that I've just described it'll be identified as a dinosaur - because it will be a dinosaur."

Archaeoraptor hoax update?National Geographic recants!

Yet another birdosaur claim?!

The difference between science and creationism is that EVERY scientific theory is subject to disciplined debate. EVERY scientific theory is "falsifiable". You present that debate here as somehow being a weakness of science, rather than it's greatest strenght.

When scientific theories are undermined ("falsified") by the data, the theories are abandoned or reformulated, and/or new theories are developed to account for the latest data.

All your first citation here does is indicate that there is an ongoing debate in the scientific community. Guess what? That's not in the least unusual in science.

But if you were to ask all those scientists that think birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, "Do you think the explanation, then, is Intelligent Design"? 99.7% of those scientists, the ones you're so happy to cite here, would laugh you out of the room

As to your 2nd and 3rd citation, they're more of your predictable, tendentious crap, lifted from your pro-Genesis websites. They prove nothing. They are worth nothing.

As to Genesis itself: Is "Genesis" falsifiable, Rip? Can you think of an "experiment" or "data" that, even in theory, could disprove Genesis? And if you can't, why are you offering up an example of scientific debate when no such debate is conceivably possible on the subject of Genesis? Don't you think that's a tad disingenuous on your part?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin


Tell you what, how about if we just stick to the facts and skip the fluff.

You are the master of fluff. You cite fake science from pro-genesis websites. It's clear you have no interest in "facts".

Answer the questions:

Do you have an open mind on the question of biological evolution?

Tell us what specific, realistic evidence would convince you of the legitimacy of macroevolution.

Is Genesis falsifiable?

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Billions of fossils have been unearthed yet not a single transitional form has been uncovered.

Since you get to cite crap websites like the ICR, here's the natural response to that false statement:

There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.


Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:


Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.


The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).


A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).


The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).


Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.


Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).


Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).


Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).


The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).


Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).


Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:


Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).


Dinosaur-bird transitions.


Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).


The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).


Transitions between mesonychids and whales.


Transitions between fish and tetrapods.


Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:


The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).


Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.


An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
Links:
Hunt, Kathleen. 1994-1997. Transitional vertebrate fossils FAQ. http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

Miller, Keith B. n.d. Taxonomy, transitional forms, and the fossil record. http://www.asa3.org/ASA/resources/Miller.html

Patterson, Bob. 2002. Transitional fossil species and modes of speciation. http://www.origins.tv/darwin/transitionals.htm

Thompson, Tim. 1999. On creation science and transitional fossils. http://www.tim-thompson.com/trans-fossils.html
References:
Caldwell, M. W. and M. S. Y. Lee, 1997. A snake with legs from the marine Cretaceous of the Middle East. Nature 386: 705-709.
Conway Morris, Simon, 1998. The Crucible of Creation, Oxford University Press.
Cronin, T. M., 1985. Speciation and stasis in marine ostracoda: climatic modulation of evolution. Science 227: 60-63.
Domning, Daryl P., 2001a. The earliest known fully quadupedal sirenian. Nature 413: 625-627.
Domning, Daryl P., 2001b. New "intermediate form" ties seacows firmly to land. Reports of the National Center for Science Education 21(5-6): 38-42.
Eldredge, Niles, 1972. Systematics and evolution of Phacops rana (Green, 1832) and Phacops iowensis Delo, 1935 (Trilobita) from the Middle Devonian of North America. Bulletin of the American Museum of Natural History 147(2): 45-114.
Eldredge, Niles, 1974. Stability, diversity, and speciation in Paleozoic epeiric seas. Journal of Paleontology 48(3): 540-548.
Gingerich, P. D., 1976. Paleontology and phylogeny: Patterns of evolution of the species level in early Tertiary mammals. American Journal of Science 276(1): 1-28.
Gingerich, P. D., 1980. Evolutionary patterns in early Cenozoic mammals. Annual Review of Earth and Planetary Sciences 8: 407-424.
Gingerich, P. D., 1983. Evidence for evolution from the vertebrate fossil record. Journal of Geological Education 31: 140-144.
Hallam, A., 1968. Morphology, palaeoecology and evolution of the genus Gryphaea in the British Lias. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 254: 91-128.
Lee, Michael S. Y., Gorden L. Bell Jr. and Michael W. Caldwell, 1999. The origin of snake feeding. Nature 400: 655-659.
Lewin, R., 1981. No gap here in the fossil record. Science 214: 645-646.
Lindsay, Don, 1997. A smooth fossil transition: Orbulina, a foram. http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/orbulina.html
Malmgren, B. A., W. A. Berggren and G. P. Lohmann, 1984. Species formation through punctuated gradualism in planktonic foraminifera. Science 225: 317-319.
Miller, Kenneth R., 1999. Finding Darwin's God. New York: HarperCollins.
Pearson, P. N., N. J. Shackleton and M. A. Hall. 1997. Stable isotopic evidence for the sympatric divergence of Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (planktonic foraminifera). Journal of the Geological Society, London 154: 295-302.
Richmond B. G. and D. S. Strait, 2000. Evidence that humans evolved from a knuckle-walking ancestor. Nature 404: 382-385. See also Collard, M. and L. C. Aiello, 2000. From forelimbs to two legs. Nature 404: 339-340.
Shu, D.-G. et al., 2004. Ancestral echinoderms from the Chengjiang deposits of China. Nature 430: 422-428.
Stanley, Steven M., 1974. Relative growth of the titanothere horn: A new approach to an old problem. Evolution 28: 447-457.
Strapple, R. R., 1978. Tracing three trilobites. Earth Science 31(4): 149-152.
Tchernov, E. et al., 2000. A fossil snake with limbs. Science 287: 2010-2012. See also Greene, H. W. and D. Cundall, 2000. Limbless tetrapods and snakes with legs. Science 287: 1939-1941.
Ward, L. W. and B. W. Blackwelder, 1975. Chesapecten, A new genus of Pectinidae (Mollusca: Bivalvia) from the Miocene and Pliocene of eastern North America. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 861.

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

 

[shoegazer]

"Archaeoraptor and other Chinese fossils, such as Sinosauropteryx, have been used as ?proof? of evolution and thus ?disproof? of the Bible as the inerrant Word of God. We must remember that God?s Word never changes and must therefore be the basis for all our thinking rather than the fanciful, ever-changing findings of men."

this is from that "Archaeoraptor hoax update?National Geographic recants!" link.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin


If you want to point out evidence in the fossil record that supports macroevolution I'll be happy to try to offer a rebutal.

I didn't read the reference, but I suppose that it supports ID because it demonstrates the adptability of organisms inherent in their design.

You've already asked for 'transitional fossils' been given several examples (e.g. small raptors with feathers, strongly suggesting a link between dinosaurs and birds).

The answer to the second question is that the evidence neither supports nor detracts from ID, if that is, you first discount that it does support evolution: mutation causing functional changes, followed by selection and propogation.

The dinosaurs among us

But for all the evidence that points toward a dinosaurian origin of birds, the issue remains hotly debated. A vocal minority of paleontologists opposes the theory, disbelieving that birds could have possibly emanated from dinosaurs.

"I really think they're on thin ice at the moment," says Currie. "I think what it comes down to right now, that to convince the majority of paleontologists that birds don't come from dinosaurs they're going to have to either turn it around and say that dinosaurs came from birds, or alternatively, they're going to have to find some fossils that convincingly show you have something that's not a dinosaur and yet is something that has enough characters to show it could be ancestral to birds. The trouble is if they find something that I've just described it'll be identified as a dinosaur - because it will be a dinosaur."

Archaeoraptor hoax update?National Geographic recants!

Yet another birdosaur claim?!

The difference between science and creationism is that EVERY scientific theory is subject to disciplined debate. EVERY scientific theory is "falsifiable". You present that debate here as somehow being a weakness of science, rather than it's greatest strenght.

When scientific theories are undermined ("falsified") by the data, the theories are abandoned or reformulated, and/or new theories are developed to account for the latest data.

All your first citation here does is indicate that there is an ongoing debate in the scientific community. Guess what? That's not in the least unusual in science.

But if you were to ask all those scientists that think birds did not evolve from dinosaurs, "Do you think the explanation, then, is Intelligent Design"? 99.7% of those scientists, the ones you're so happy to cite here, would laugh you out of the room

As to your 2nd and 3rd citation, they're more of your predictable, tendentious crap, lifted from your pro-Genesis websites. They prove nothing. They are worth nothing.

As to Genesis itself: Is "Genesis" falsifiable, Rip? Can you think of an "experiment" or "data" that, even in theory, could disprove Genesis? And if you can't, why are you offering up an example of scientific debate when no such debate is conceivably possible on the subject of Genesis? Don't you think that's a tad disingenuous on your part?

More fluff.

Let me know when me when you uncover a transitional form.

Billions of fossils and not a single one yet.

What does the fossil record tell us?

It tells us that plants and animals appeared abruptly and most fossils are very similar if not identical to creatures living today.

The fossil record is consistent with special creation, not macroevolution.

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

No Rip, you're the fluff king. You don't answer direct questions addressed to you:

Tell us: Define "transitional form". Be specific. We're tired of guessing what might satisfy you.

Tell us, specifically, what fossil record would convince you of macroevolution?

Tell us: Is your mind open on the question of biological evolution?

Tell us: Is Genesis falsifiable?

 

[Riprorin]

Colin Patterson, senior paleontologists at the British Museum of Natural History who wrote to a reader in 1979 the following passage:

"I fully agree with your commentary on the lack of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would have certainly included them. I will lay it on the line, there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument."

It is claimed that Patterson asked the assemblage of paleontologists at a 1998 conference whether anyone knew of a genuine transitional form, receiving no answer but silence. This report is only partially substantiated.

Evolutionists have dealt with this concern in two divergent ways. Some have decided that evolution is simply a postulate which must be believed due to lack of reasonable alternatives.Others, such as Gould, have claimed that evolution does not take place in small gradual steps. Rather, he and others believe that evolution may take place in small populations for short bursts of time before a plateau is reached. This means that transitional forms would be few in number because they only exists in small populations for small lengths of time.

This latter viewpoint is known as punctuated equilibrium, and is discussed in great detail here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/punc-eq.html#pe-vs-pg); it became a major rival to Neo-Darwinism in the latter part of the 20th century.

Some have decided that evolution is simply a postulate which must be believed due to lack of reasonable alternatives.

Do you think that's good science?

Link

 

[tooltime]

age old question.

 

[tooltime]

my reply to the op is God created the universe

 

[abj13]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Some have decided that evolution is simply a postulate which must be believed due to lack of reasonable alternatives.

Do you think that's good science?

LMAO! What scientist, evolutionist, or "objective" person has said this? A blanket statement of "some" without a single reference, quote, or citation has no merit. Its funny, you are the one complaining about "fluff," and what do you post? "Fluff." How about you take a timeout from Googling and answer the questions that are repeatedly posted for you to answer?

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: abj13

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Some have decided that evolution is simply a postulate which must be believed due to lack of reasonable alternatives.

Do you think that's good science?

LMAO! What scientist, evolutionist, or "objective" person has said this? A blanket statement of "some" without a single reference, quote, or citation has no merit. Its funny, you are the one complaining about "fluff," and what do you post? "Fluff." How about you take a timeout from Googling and answer the questions that are repeatedly posted for you to answer?

Yes, Rip. Tell us what would convince you that biological evolution is true. We're tired of guessing what you want, so be specific.

We answer all your questions, and you just go back to your Genesis websites and quote more garbage.

So all you need to do is let us know what sort of specific "transitional" information will convert you from being a creationist bible-thumper to an evolutionist, and we'll be happy to provide it.

Help us turn you into a bible-burning atheist. We know you've got it in you.

 

[NeenerNeener]

I know you're being facetious, but I generally believe in evolution and would never abandon my personal faith.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: NeenerNeener
I know you're being facetious, but I generally believe in evolution and would never abandon my personal faith.

What do you mean when you say that you "believe in evolution"?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: shira

Originally posted by: abj13

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Some have decided that evolution is simply a postulate which must be believed due to lack of reasonable alternatives.

Do you think that's good science?

LMAO! What scientist, evolutionist, or "objective" person has said this? A blanket statement of "some" without a single reference, quote, or citation has no merit. Its funny, you are the one complaining about "fluff," and what do you post? "Fluff." How about you take a timeout from Googling and answer the questions that are repeatedly posted for you to answer?

Yes, Rip. Tell us what would convince you that biological evolution is true. We're tired of guessing what you want, so be specific.

We answer all your questions, and you just go back to your Genesis websites and quote more garbage.

So all you need to do is let us know what sort of specific "transitional" information will convert you from being a creationist bible-thumper to an evolutionist, and we'll be happy to provide it.

Help us turn you into a bible-burning atheist. We know you've got it in you.

To accept macroevolution, I would like to evidence that the change engine of natural selection and random mutations can develop the highly complex and intricate structures that we find in living organisms, and I would like to see evidence in the fossil record that suggests that large-scale biological changes have taken place in the past.

 

[Riprorin]

"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron,?and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident? such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible.

"To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others,?is to create questions more profound than are answered."?David Raphael Klein, "Is There a Substitute for God?" in Reader's Digest, March 1970, p. 55.

 

[her209]

Person 1: How do you know you exist?
Person 2: Because if I didn't exist, I could not question my existence, therefore I exist.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
"Anyone who can contemplate the eye of a housefly, the mechanics of human finger movement, the camouflage of a moth, or the building of every kind of matter from variations in arrangement of proton and electron,?and then maintain that all this design happened without a designer, happened by sheer, blind accident? such a person believes in a miracle far more astounding than any in the Bible.

"To regard man, with his arts and aspirations, his awareness of himself and of his universe, his emotions and his morals, his very ability to conceive an idea so grand as that of God, to regard this creature as merely a form of life somewhat higher on the evolutionary ladder than the others,?is to create questions more profound than are answered."?David Raphael Klein, "Is There a Substitute for God?" in Reader's Digest, March 1970, p. 55.

"To regard man,,,,,da,da,da" This is just somebody's opinion and means nothing at all to me. The opposite seems much more true. Evolution has appeal because it answers more questions than it creates. There is no theory of anything that isn't made more complected and unlikely than explaining things by a God that can't be explained. Life can't have happened without design? But God happened without design by what?, designing himself or he was always here. Well nobody can design themselves before they exist and if He always existed than why not the universe always existed.

You keep implying that science doesn't add up without seeing that God doesn't add up either. God just adds an extra layer of absurdity to what we don't understand.

 

[misterj]

article on the honey bee and how it uses complex messaging systems, and how evolution does not seem to fit. http://www.figionline.com/Dancing_Bees.htm

like i said, science may be able to explain it as time goes on, but there will always be something going back to God.

btw, why can't evolution and the Bible coexist? perhaps not by their pure definitions.. think, metaphor..

 

[rikadik]

I'm just gonna stick my nose right into this debate!

Riprorin is right about the fossil record... there have been no documented transitional fossils which have not been dispelled as fakes. By transitional fossils, I don't mean neandethal men etc... I mean fossils which show the major transitions anywhere along the line from the earliest building blocks of life to humans today. All the species which are apparently linked change abrubtly in the fossil record - this is known as the Cambrian explosion. To assume such links without seeing the in-betweens is an enormous assumption.

However evolution does happen all around us - you cannot argue against this really without feeling silly. Like many say there is mountains of evidence to support evolution. But there is no evidence beyond mere assumptions that support evolution as the source of all life. And if you find some I'd be happy to look at it.

So what do I think? Well I'm an agnostic really, I certainly don't believe in God in the sense that most relgions do... I just believe that there must be something bigger than the universe, or something there before it? I also find it silly that frequently Christians write off evolution entirely. If human life started with Adam and Eve (who for examples sake we could say were White European and Chinese respectively) then how can you explain Indian, Japanese, Filipino, African America etc etc races? Surely the Christians aren't going to argue some races are not human?!

The most important thing is macroevolution is a scientific theory, and science isn't always right, and frequently proven wrong by new science. How you explain things can be grossly incorrect if you don't understand enough around you. For example, in the 19th century, top scientists calculated that man would never be able to fly, since once he had enough coal and water he'd be too heavy to get off the ground. Scientific theory once, clearly utter rubbish in today's wider context of knowledge and innovation.

 

[LT4CAMSS]

rikadik - The longer people want to continue reading a bible translated from Greek to English (or any other language for that matter) and continue to believe in its inherent perfection then the longer this debate will go on. But then that's a WHOLE different argument on its own (Assyrian Aramaic Primacy vs. Greek Primacy). If anyone is interested...PM me or something. The PM should be from people who want to have intelligent convos...not fanaticats who be buggin and believe in one narrow perspective and want to spit foul language.

 

[Czar]

Rip,
shira asked you 4 simple questions, could you please answer?

Tell us: Define "transitional form". Be specific. We're tired of guessing what might satisfy you.

Tell us, specifically, what fossil record would convince you of macroevolution?

Tell us: Is your mind open on the question of biological evolution?

Tell us: Is Genesis falsifiable?

dont do quotes, use your own words

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Czar
Rip,
shira asked you 4 simple questions, could you please answer?

Tell us: Define "transitional form". Be specific. We're tired of guessing what might satisfy you.

Tell us, specifically, what fossil record would convince you of macroevolution?

Tell us: Is your mind open on the question of biological evolution?

Tell us: Is Genesis falsifiable?

dont do quotes, use your own words

He wants an elephant with a crocodile head, despite the fact that such a thing would never have existed under evolution.

 

[cquark]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: cryptonomicon
personally, all the fossil records i have seen from my anthropology class makes it pretty obvious that evolution was real

Can you give me some examples that were used from the fossil record to prove that macroevolution occured?

Go read my previous posts on transitional fossils on this thread; several of the fossil sequences mentioned by me and others here were such examples.