The Theory of Evolution

[shoegazer]

and do we see any of this creationist research in an established scientific journal? nope.

 

[Riprorin]

If you want a good laugh, read about Piltdown Man.

Piltdown Man: Britain's Greatest Hoax

And over 500 students wrote their doctoral dissertations on the Piltdown Man and were awarded Ph.D. degrees from outstanding universities!

 

[shoegazer]

"500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown man

This claim appears in creationist sources. Gary Parker's pamphlet "Origin of Mankind", Impact series #101, Creation-Life Publishers (1981) makes the claim without qualification or source. Lubenow's Bones of Contention (1992) remarks that it is said that there were 500 doctoral dissertations but does not give a source.

This claim is clearly in error. When one considers the small number of PhD's in paleontology being granted currently and the even smaller number 80 years ago and the diversity of topics chosen for PhD theses a figure of half a dozen seems generous; in all probability there were none whatsoever. John Rice Cole notes that in the 20s there were about 2 dissertations per year in physical anthropology in the entire US on ANY topic."

http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html#doctoral_theses

 

[shira]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Sickle-cell anaemia does not prove evolution!

Dr Felix Konotey-Ahulu, M.D. (Lond.), FRCP, DTMH, is a world authority on sickle-cell disease, with 25 years? experience as a physician, clinical geneticist and consultant physician in Ghana and subsequently in London. He is a visiting professor at Howard University College of Medicine in Washington, and honorary consultant to its Center for Sickle Cell Disease. He is the author of a major 643-page text, The Sickle Cell Disease Patient (Macmillan, 1991, ISBN 0333­39239-6).

This article is abstracted with Dr Konotey-Ahulu's permission from pages 106-108 of his book.

Excuse me! Is this the same Felix Konotey-Ahulu who claims there really isn't an AIDS epidemic in Africa? Who sides with the fringe "scientists" who claim that sex and HIV don't cause AIDS?

Also, in case the obvious isn't clear to you: An expert in a disease is NOT an expert in biological evolution. Those are two, absolutely distinct branches of science. Dr. Ahulu is no more qualified to speak about evolution than any lay person.

Where do you dredge up these wackos, Rip?

You know what, if I searched "pro-genesis" sites, I'll bet I could find "experts" to support ANY anti-evolution piece of evidence.

Do you think it surprising that if you probe around in the anus, you'll find shlt?

Instead of selectively choosing your "experts" to find those who will support your pre-determined positions, why don't you randomly poll, say, 100 experts on sickle-cell disease and ask them their opinion vis-a-vis evolution? Please explain why THAT method would not be at least 100 times more meaningful than dredging up Dr. Ahulu.

 

[dannybin1742]

rip still did not answer my previous questions, he simply side steps them becuase he knows we know how he will answer, which will make him look like the nut he is


yeah i forgot to add that in my last post, i knew i recognized that guy's name

Excuse me! Is this the same Felix Konotey-Ahulu who claims there really isn't an AIDS epidemic in Africa? Who sides with the fringe "scientists" who claim that sex and HIV don't cause AIDS?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: shoegazer
"500 doctoral dissertations were written on Piltdown man

This claim appears in creationist sources. Gary Parker's pamphlet "Origin of Mankind", Impact series #101, Creation-Life Publishers (1981) makes the claim without qualification or source. Lubenow's Bones of Contention (1992) remarks that it is said that there were 500 doctoral dissertations but does not give a source.

This claim is clearly in error. When one considers the small number of PhD's in paleontology being granted currently and the even smaller number 80 years ago and the diversity of topics chosen for PhD theses a figure of half a dozen seems generous; in all probability there were none whatsoever. John Rice Cole notes that in the 20s there were about 2 dissertations per year in physical anthropology in the entire US on ANY topic."

http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html#doctoral_theses

Guess I can't blame you for trying to turn the focus away from the Piltdown Man debacle!

 

[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

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: dannybin1742
rip still did not answer my previous questions, he simply side steps them becuase he knows we know how he will answer, which will make him look like the nut he is


yeah i forgot to add that in my last post, i knew i recognized that guy's name

Excuse me! Is this the same Felix Konotey-Ahulu who claims there really isn't an AIDS epidemic in Africa? Who sides with the fringe "scientists" who claim that sex and HIV don't cause AIDS?

<a target=_blank class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://www.sicklecell.md/pdfs/CURVITAEv09_summary-2004.pdf">DR FELIX I D KONOTEY-AHULU
CURRICULUM VITAE</a>

 

[cryptonomicon]

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

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Whaspe
Noone here was pinning their entire case on just sickle cell anemia. It was Rip who admitted demonstrated natural selection and is a good example on the broadness 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

And what natural selection DOESN'T demonstrate is the ability to transform one species into another.

Modern evolutionists acknowledge this, hence the theory of punctuated equillibrium, for example.

I'm not familiar with the CCR5 mutation. I'll have to research it.

 

[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?

 

[3chordcharlie]

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?

He could - they would probably be the same ones you've already been shown in this thread and others.

 

[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

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

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?

He could - they would probably be the same ones you've already been shown in this thread and others.

Summarize them from me. I don't have time to hunt through all of the threads.

 

[3chordcharlie]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

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?

He could - they would probably be the same ones you've already been shown in this thread and others.

Summarize them from me. I don't have time to hunt through all of the threads.

Don't patronize me, you're better then that. These things have been raised in this thread and the ID thread, and you have either ignored them or tried to explain them away. Don't ask for evidence if you're going to refuse to consider it.

By the way, your dismissal of the CCR5 is premature, but even if we accept that it is not evidence of evolution, how, exactly, is it evidence of intelligent design?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: 3chordcharlie

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?

He could - they would probably be the same ones you've already been shown in this thread and others.

Summarize them from me. I don't have time to hunt through all of the threads.

Don't patronize me, you're better then that. These things have been raised in this thread and the ID thread, and you have either ignored them or tried to explain them away. Don't ask for evidence if you're going to refuse to consider it.

By the way, your dismissal of the CCR5 is premature, but even if we accept that it is not evidence of evolution, how, exactly, is it evidence of intelligent design?

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.

 

[shoegazer]

what in the fossil record disproves evolution?

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

and could you explain this a little better?

 

[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.

 

[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."

 

[shoegazer]

looks like the end of this thread....or not...

 

[shira]

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?

Rather than having us waste our time flooding you with evidence that you'll continue to discount, why don't YOU tell US what hypothetical evidence would in your eyes "prove that macroevolution occurred". Be specific.

 

[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?!

 

[Jmman]

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. I guess I am smart enough to know that virtually nothing can be 100% proven, and especially not evolution. That being said, there is probably more evidence to support evolution as opposed to ID. Feel free to continue your bickering now......

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: shira

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?

Rather than having us waste our time flooding you with evidence that you'll continue to discount, why don't YOU tell US what hypothetical evidence would in your eyes "prove that macroevolution occurred". Be specific.

140 years ago Darwin said: "Right now there are no transitional forms, yet further research will uncover them."

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

If macroevolution is true and all organisms are derived a single-cell precursor, the fossil record should be replete with transitional forms.

If macroevolution occured, where are they?

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Jmman
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. I guess I am smart enough to know that virtually nothing can be 100% proven, and especially not evolution. That being said, there is probably more evidence to support evolution as opposed to ID. Feel free to continue your bickering now......

And what do you base that opinion on?