| Author |
 Topic  |
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
 Posted - 08/18/2004 : 11:54:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by glacial906
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
Does anyone care to have a civilized debate about evolution/creationism?
I come to the table as a Christian who has never had any doubt in my mind that the "theory" of evolution was obviously false. However I have recently read some books (supporting both sides of the argument) because I wanted to have an informed opinion, not blind faith. Now being somewhat familiar with the major arguments, I'd be interested in a conversation with someone who has also done some research and came to a different conclusion.
I'm not looking for an athiest vs Christian debate, as I'm probably one of the worst people on the plantet to act as a defender of Christianity. But I am interested in hearing what arguments you think support evolution, because I've looked and haven't found any...
I'm assuming that you are still of the creationist set of beliefs, then?.
quote:
Evolution, on the other hand, I have no reason to disbelieve, and have seen physical proof of it's existence. like australopithescenes, for instance; actual bones that have been found and documented like Lucy....
|
 |
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 12:08:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by glacial906
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
Does anyone care to have a civilized debate about evolution/creationism?
I come to the table as a Christian who has never had any doubt in my mind that the "theory" of evolution was obviously false. However I have recently read some books (supporting both sides of the argument) because I wanted to have an informed opinion, not blind faith. Now being somewhat familiar with the major arguments, I'd be interested in a conversation with someone who has also done some research and came to a different conclusion.
I'm not looking for an athiest vs Christian debate, as I'm probably one of the worst people on the plantet to act as a defender of Christianity. But I am interested in hearing what arguments you think support evolution, because I've looked and haven't found any...
I'm assuming that you are still of the creationist set of beliefs, then?
Evolution, on the other hand, I have no reason to disbelieve, and have seen physical proof of it's existence.
...like australopithescenes, for instance; actual bones that have been found and documented like Lucy...
I do hold creationist beliefs. However, I would be lying if I said I understood exactly how it took place. I do believe that the Bible is the Word of God, but that doesn't mean that I can just read the first few chapters of the Genesis and completely understand the history of Earth. I haven't made my mind up yet on the young earth/old earth debate, its on my list of future reading material. And don't even get me started on Noah's flood because I have no good answers there either.
It's very hard to seperate my religion from my beliefs on our origins, but I believe that even if I was an athiest I would see the holes in evolution. I think that it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than it takes to believe in a Creator God.
Regarding Lucy etc.. and other so called evidence for evolution. I'm going to dig up some of the creationist explanations for these fossils instead of trying to pull it directly out of my brain and end up messing up their arguments. More on this later...
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 12:17:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
Darwin, when you say we see evolution happen, I would classify that as natural selection or maybe micro-evolution (is that a real term?). Nobody can deny that natural selection on a micro-level is logical and observable, i.e. organisms that are more successful in reproducing tend to pass the traits that helped them become more successful in reproducing to the next generation.
However that is astronomically different from believing that millions of years ago life magically sprang from non-life and tiny mutations working w/ natural selection lead to the diversity that we now see.
It's evolution by natural selection and some people do deny what you've called micro-evolution. If you can beleive that over a few short generations (on the order of 50 years for bacteria) that resistance to antibiotics can evolve, then why is it hard to believe that over millions of years species can evolve larger adaptations.
Also, I think any discussion of how species have evolved and speciated over the last 2 billion years is a different discussion than how life started on Earth. How life kept going and evolved is obviously a discussion of evolution, but how the universe "started" or what was the initial spark of life on Earth aren't really questions that are answered by natural selection and evolution. |
Edited by - darwin on 08/18/2004 12:35:03 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 12:29:01
|
yay darwin! you tell them how it is
(I'll pip in if it gets molecular but you're kicking arse at the moment so I'm happy to watch)
 I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
shineoftheever
> Teenager of the Year <
Canada
4307 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 12:36:43
|
Fuck it, I don't wanna get involved.
 "tk-tk-tka-chk-ch-tk-tttt-whaaa-chk-tk-tk" |
Edited by - shineoftheever on 08/18/2004 12:41:05 |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 12:42:09
|
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
I agree that it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than a Creator, I just have a hard time with the beginning, Big Bang or otherwise, I believe the Bible is the word of God also but is meant to be figurative, not literal.
Is that you meant to say? It doesn't go with the rest of the sentence as I read it and I have a hard time understanding why evolution requires more faith when it is observable. You can set up experiments and see evolution happen. |
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 13:52:14
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
Darwin, when you say we see evolution happen, I would classify that as natural selection or maybe micro-evolution (is that a real term?). Nobody can deny that natural selection on a micro-level is logical and observable, i.e. organisms that are more successful in reproducing tend to pass the traits that helped them become more successful in reproducing to the next generation.
However that is astronomically different from believing that millions of years ago life magically sprang from non-life and tiny mutations working w/ natural selection lead to the diversity that we now see.
It's evolution by natural selection and some people do deny what you've called micro-evolution. If you can beleive that over a few short generations (on the order of 50 years for bacteria) that resistance to antibiotics can evolve, then why is it hard to believe that over millions of years species can evolve larger adaptations.
I think that resistance to antibiotics is a nice, simple, single step example of natural selection. Bacteria resitant to the antibiotics reproduce more, thus passing on the resistant genes to the next generation, who in turn are more successfull and on and on and on... no denying that. But it is a giant leap to go from that to saying natural selection can create something as complex as say (ok I'll use the standard example) the human eye.
The number of tiny mutations required evolve such a complex organ are innumerable. And each successive mutation has to be great enough to give that new generation a competitive edge for natural selection to work. This is a much harder example of natural selection to believe in than your bacteria example, even with millions of years to work with.
And I agree with you that talking about the absolute beginning of life is a whole different ball of wax than discussing evolution by natural selection. But you really can't have one without the other can you?
I mean at least a creationist has an aswer for how life began. God created it, so there it is. Admittedly thats not a very satisfying answer to any true scientist because it is unobservable, unrepeatable, and unprovable. But to a creationist, it is an answer, albeit one that requires a leap of faith.
What do evolutionists have to explain the absolute beginning of life? They have their own unprovable leaps of faith--not very satisfying either...
|
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 14:00:11
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
You can set up experiments and see evolution happen.
Correction, you can set up experiments and see incredibly simple examples of natural selection happen. That is a far cry from showing how a single cell organism can evolve into say a fish.
I'm afraid evolutionists find themselves in the same boat as creationists when it comes to the ability to scientifically prove their theory. They can't.
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 14:03:05
|
I don't really want to discuss the origin of life because I thought this discussion was about evolution, but here is link that provides current scientific hypotheses about how life could have started and Miller & Urey's classic experiments (I took physics in Urey Hall at UCSD).
http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/abiogenesis.htm
I don't have trouble believing eyes have evolved. I know that's not a convincing argument, but there has been a lot of time and generations and each step only needs to provide a small advantage. Being able to detect light, resources, and predators provides some strong selection for evolving something along the lines of an eye. |
|
|
|
shineoftheever
> Teenager of the Year <
Canada
4307 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 14:06:50
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
I agree that it takes much more faith to believe in evolution than a Creator, I just have a hard time with the beginning, Big Bang or otherwise, I believe the Bible is the word of God also but is meant to be figurative, not literal.
Is that you meant to say? It doesn't go with the rest of the sentence as I read it and I have a hard time understanding why evolution requires more faith when it is observable. You can set up experiments and see evolution happen.
no, i was agreeing with harring, but as i said before i don't have fully formed convictions of belief so i can see how you see that as a contradictory statement. my apologies.
if you believe in creation you believe in something that is unprovable by scientific means and therefore are not subject to scientific proof. if you believe in evolution your beliefs are subject to scientific proof because evolution is a scientific phenomenon. therefore more faith is required to fill all the gaps in the latter theory, get it?
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 14:11:02
|
um, no.
It would take a hell of a lot of faith on my part to believe the seven days wham boom life theory than a scientific and provable phenomena, there's a lot more gaps in god--->life than the scientific evolutionary timeline.
I guess in these respects it's more of a matter where your faith lies, in God or in science
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 14:12:55
|
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
if you believe in creation you believe in something that is unprovable by scientific means and therefore are not subject to scientific proof.
Isn't that faith? Faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" (American Heritage Dictionary).
quote:
if you believe in evolution your beliefs are subject to scientific proof because evolution is a scientific phenomenon. therefore more faith is required to fill all the gaps in the latter theory, get it?
Science is relying on (or at least trying to rely on) "material evidence" and thus is not based on faith.
|
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 15:00:04
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
I don't have trouble believing eyes have evolved. I know that's not a convincing argument, but there has been a lot of time and generations and each step only needs to provide a small advantage. Being able to detect light, resources, and predators provides some strong selection for evolving something along the lines of an eye.
Ahh, but what is the first step? It would take much more than one small mutation for a completely eye-less creature to all of a sudden develop a simple light-detecting organ that provides a substantial competitive edge.
It would need some sort of external organ to detect the light (I'm not a biologist, but this would certainly need to be made up of multiple parts), and some sort of optic nerve to transmit the information back to the brain for interpretation. How could all of that come about in a single mutation?
Of course it couldn't come from a single mutation, so they try to say each part evolved independently and just happened to fit together in the end. What sense does that make? How does an optic nerve without a light detecting organ provide a competitive edge? How does a light detecting organ without an optic nerve provide a competitive edge?
This is the type of paradox that I haven't found a convincing argument for from an evolutionist. Dawkins tries to explain it by saying 5% of your vision is better than no vision at all, so there is your competitive advantage. But 5% of an eye doesn't necessarily mean 5% of your vision. You need multiple parts working together to evolve simulataneously to even have 1% of your vision. Without any of these individual pieces you may have 5% of an eye BUT 0% OF YOUR VISION. Where is the competitive advantage?
I better get back to work now, but I'll check back this eve... |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 15:02:12
|
a clorophyll is a simple light detecting cell.
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 15:06:22
|
actually give me a sec I have some notes on this somewhere.... or darwin can tell you prolly.. where's my damned paper work,,,
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 15:20:41
|
um, ok, I found my notes and it all seems to start with light sensitive spots on cells and/or photoreceptors, the dark light cycle is one of the most important biological cycles (plants for example rely heavily on this as we all know)
Sensitive lightspots on the skin could have lead to gradual opening of an aperture like a pinhole camera and then lead onto a simple eye (eye's have two types compound and simple) the biological structure of which are simple (funnily) recognising basically differences between light and dark, hence the poor vision and why 5% is better than 0% (if on a sunny day it suddenly goes real dark chances are you have a big predator hanging over you and should leg it) there are three types of simple eye a pinhole eye, a camera eye and a concave mirror eye.
This is a diagram of the pinhole eye, you can see how basic it is.
basically a hole to let in light and a bunch of cells that probably evolved due to photoexcitation to be sensitive to these light dark changes, the vision is poor. There is no lens, this is your most basic eye. I'll have to do more digging in my notes if you want more detail.
will add in a second, trying to refresh myself here... darwin or anyone If i've made a mistake do let me know
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 15:31:11
|
I'm not certain or nothin', and please don't yell at me if I'm off base with any of this, but it seems possible that critters etc. with nerves or other types of cells sensitive to light could mutate that function pretty easily. Like Tre mentioned, the biological mechanism is pretty simple - as clorophyll cells in plants, or like photophores in cephalopods. To further that thought a little (I'm rambling a bit, but please be patient with me), stem cells can form any number of other cells in the early development stages of an animal.
Another thing to ponder - the recent studies of sea slugs, wherein thoughts and memories being physically formed (real-time creation of neurotransmitters and neural connections), and also the loss of memory (in broken connections) were possible to detect via the naked eye. Thoughts and ideas are a physical creative force.
A mouse in a trap takes a long time to realize he’s in a trap. After that something in him never stops trembling. -John Berger |
Edited by - apl4eris on 08/18/2004 15:36:32 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 15:36:41
|
Ok, your next type of simple eye is the concave mirror eye, next step up from the pinhole, and is like the name suggests a concave mirror, light into the eye bounced off a transparent retina to form a convex image, brighter and slightly clearer than the pinhole, it's not a huge step to imagine cells evolving to better use the light coming through what is still basically a pinhole.
The last of the simple eyes is the camera eye and this brings with it the introduction of a round lens and much better "picture quality" than the first two eye types.
These are the three simple eye types, DNA and amino acid analysis has shown there to be homology within many phyla, of the basic eye types but there are instances of non-homology which many people claim as evidence against evolution, but what I think a lot of people don't realise is that formation of any desirable trait does not occur once in one creature in one time in one place, development of the eye could have occured a number of times independantly as is quite common in these cases, I wrote a thing once on the occurence of blood sucking insects and there were a number of times in a number of ways that this phenomoena occured in the natural world. Evolution isn't a thing that happens and then the world suddenly shifts you know.
Ok, so I'm tired and I've "Peter and Janed" this quite a bit, I could give you some references if you're really interested. I'll probably end up editing this 'cos I've really dumbed it down. now, where's my copy of kill bill 2
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 15:37:48
|
sorry apl I typed over you some there!
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 15:40:07
|
's ok, I'm really enjoying your contributions! I just rambled a bit about sea slug brains mostly, anyway.
A mouse in a trap takes a long time to realize he’s in a trap. After that something in him never stops trembling. -John Berger |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 15:47:12
|
I really enjoyed the developmental part of my studies for the most part but I tended to switch off for most of the animal biology I have to confess, At a molecular level I could tell you about all the different types of mutations and cascades and proteins and DNA and genes and amino acids and transposons and cell cycles and cell pathology and recombinant DNA technology mRNA/rRNA/tRNA and codons and cancers and bacteriology and GM and er, and geeky shit like that, gee, i love all those words, this is good though, I need my head refreshing, it's been a while.
I'm such a geeky science nerd.
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
VoVat
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
9168 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 16:32:36
|
quote:
And I agree with you that talking about the absolute beginning of life is a whole different ball of wax than discussing evolution by natural selection. But you really can't have one without the other can you?
No, but not having an answer for one doesn't mean you can't have an answer for the other.
quote:
I mean at least a creationist has an aswer for how life began. God created it, so there it is.
Which leads into the inevitable and largely cliché question of where God came from. I'm not really sure how it makes more sense for God to be eternal and the Universe finite in time than for the Universe itself to be eternal. That doesn't disprove the existence of God, of course, but the "God created the Universe" argument seems rather suspect. On the other hand, life is such an odd phenomenon that I can see why someone would want to attribute it to a creator. That's obviously not scientific, though.
No one actually BELIEVES in evolution, in the same way that Christians believe in God and the Bible. Many people accept it as fact, but that's not really the same thing. Christians think they'll get an eternal reward in Heaven for believing in their religion. Scientists don't think they'll evolve into something better by believing in evolution.
As for Noah's Ark, there have been suggestions that the story was based on a flood of the Black Sea. There are very similar stories in other myth cycles. On the other hand, even if some say it's true, I can't see the Tower of Babel story as anything but a fable.
Cattle in Korea / They can really moo. |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 16:47:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by VoVat
On the other hand, even if some say it's true, I can't see the Tower of Babel story as anything but a fable.
Maybe(l) it was about microorganisms building into colonies that went out of control and toppled the ecosystem?
Sorry, that was bad.
We are Devo.
A mouse in a trap takes a long time to realize he’s in a trap. After that something in him never stops trembling. -John Berger |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 16:49:02
|
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
You can set up experiments and see evolution happen.
Correction, you can set up experiments and see incredibly simple examples of natural selection happen. That is a far cry from showing how a single cell organism can evolve into say a fish.
I'm afraid evolutionists find themselves in the same boat as creationists when it comes to the ability to scientifically prove their theory. They can't.
Evolutionist can see the mechanisms (natural selection, genetic drift, ect.) of their process (evolution and speciation) at work in experiments I have mentioned. And they can see the results and trends of evolution in the fossil record, genes and genetic similarities of related species, and in the field can demonstrate that speciation is occuring between sister species. By this last one I mean that in some cases it is possible to show that populations of a species have become unable or less able to mate (hybrid zones) with each other when they have been seperated by barriers like rivers, deserts, mountains, ect. They are becoming distinct species. Speciation is happening and observable. So, there is good evidence for evolution. I don't know of any evidence for creation. |
|
|
|
TheCroutonFuton
- Mr. Setlists -
USA
1728 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 17:17:26
|
As for where God came from? I've heard the argument that God had to have started the whole "God" myth...because nothing doesn't come from something. For example: You've never seen a zebra before. You see stripes..you're not going to think of a zebra, are you? Of course not. If you see a zebra, though, you're going to think of stripes. So, that must prove God because the whole "myth" had to come from somewhere blablablablabla.
Yeah, too bad we're intellectual creatures who have imaginations. We've always had natural leaders in our societies...so it seems pretty obvious to me that someone would think, "Hmm...maybe there's a really big man somewhere who leads all of us, and hell, even if there isn't it's a great scapegoat!"
That doesn't hold water with me. Then again, the chances of there being life from nothing and then BANG! (pun intended) there's something(!) are very slim. (Which scientists have admitted.) So..who knows. I'm on neither side.
"Freedom is a state of mind and the condition and position of your ass. Free your mind and your ass will follow." - Funkadelic |
|
|
|
shineoftheever
> Teenager of the Year <
Canada
4307 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 17:41:47
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
if you believe in creation you believe in something that is unprovable by scientific means and therefore are not subject to scientific proof.
Isn't that faith? Faith is "belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence" (American Heritage Dictionary).
quote:
if you believe in evolution your beliefs are subject to scientific proof because evolution is a scientific phenomenon. therefore more faith is required to fill all the gaps in the latter theory, get it?
Science is relying on (or at least trying to rely on) "material evidence" and thus is not based on faith.
belief and faith are somewhat synonymous, so yes, that is faith. if we have to quantify it though, you only have to suspend your disbelief at one turn(there is no scientific proof). however, for evolution, you must suspend your disbelief every time a theory gets disproven or if someone comes up with a new theory or discovery, a whole gamut of experiments and tests are required. .
quote:
So, there is good evidence for evolution. I don't know of any evidence for creation.
We are here, that is good evidence for both arguments.
Every time I think about this too much I always come to the same conclusion. I don't care. Why worry about HOW we got here and let's worry about WHY we got here, or better yet, WHERE we are going.
peace, talk to you tomorrow. |
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 18:28:28
|
quote:
Originally posted by shineoftheever
Note: I'm not taking sides here, I'm 32 years old and have yet to form a strong conviction for either Creationism or Evolution. It is far too easy to point out holes in both theories.
please point out some holes in evolution, i'd love to read them.
edit:
to the other nutcase; please explain how it takes more faith to "believe in" evolution, which you can see evidence of vs. believing in some bearded honkey in the sky who watches me masturbate to bukkake videos. |
Edited by - Ebb Vicious on 08/18/2004 18:30:45 |
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 23:27:32
|
quote:
Originally posted by glacial906
Evolution, on the other hand, I have no reason to disbelieve, and have seen physical proof of it's existence....like australopithescenes, for instance; actual bones that have been found and documented like Lucy.
Ok, back to this. Let me start by quoting my source "Tornado in a Junkyard, the relentless myth of Darwinism" by James Perloff. Everything between my ---- horizontal lines is lifted directly from this book:
---------------
In regards to Lucy, 60% of the skeleton, including most of the skull, was missing. In fact, Lucy's skull was so incomplete that most of it was "imagination made of plaster of paris," thus making it impossible to draw any firm conclusion about what species she belonged to.
Further complicating the case for australopithecines are out of place fossils. An elbow bone was discovered at Kanapoi in Kenya, entombed in a geologic stratum lower than where australopithecines are found. The fossil has been dated 4.5 million years old. The problem? It appears perfectly modern. Based on computer analysis, Henry M McHenry of the University of California, Davis, stated: "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo Sapiens..."
Other fossils contradict evolutionary theory. In 1866, a modern skull was found in a California gold mine in Pliocene deposits, making it over "two million years old". But since the Calaveras skull does not concur with their assumptions, evolutionists reject it as a joke planted by miners.
Ironically, evolutionists, who once envisioned a whole race of ape-men based on a single tooth--which turned out to be a pig's--will dismiss an entire skeleton when it clashes with Darwinian preconceptions. The truth is, there are limits to how much one can deduce from a bone. Molecular biologis Michael Denton notes that "ninety-nine percent of the biology of any organism resides in soft anatomy, which is inaccessible in a fossil."
--------------
So basically what I'm remembering from this particular author is that most of the "Science" of the fossil evidence for evolution is highly questionable. The conclusions drawn from the findings are highly contested. We are constantly told that there are mountains of proof in the fossil record, the truth is that what little evidence exists in the fossil record is debatable to say the least.
If an evolutionist finds a bone that fits their preconceived notion of what should be there and what it should look like, it's a MAGNIFICENT FIND!!! If they find something that contradicts an earlier theory or is out of place, it ends up on the trash heap.
---------------------
Harvard anthropologist Earnest Hooten noted: "Heretical and non-conforming fossil men were banished to the limbo of dark museum cupboards, forgotten or even destroyed." Anthropologist G.W.H. Schepers acknowledged:
"And when someone produces relics of Homo Sapiens in geological deposits more ancient than the Mid Pleistocene, we seek all manner of unlikely explanations for such an "impossibility" even going so far as to discredit usually reliable witnesses. Such finds ultimately become veritable skeletons in the closet to anthropologists, who, in their subconscious endeavor to support dogma even fail to describe such finds fully enough to allow fools to enter where angels fear to tread!"
--------------
In short, question what is presented as rock-solid evidence. There have also been cases of outright fraud in an attempt to plant proof. Anyone remember Piltdown Man?
|
|
|
|
harringk
- FB Fan -
USA
202 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 23:51:57
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tre
um, ok, I found my notes and it all seems to start with light sensitive spots on cells and/or photoreceptors, the dark light cycle is one of the most important biological cycles (plants for example rely heavily on this as we all know)...
Thanks for taking the time to post the diagrams and counter my agrument Tre, I enjoy the constructive conversation. But I'm still having a problem with the very beginning of the eye. I guess the same way I have a problem with the beginning of all life in the evolutionary view.
I guess my main problem is with the tiny steps necessary to form even simple sensory organs like this, and how each of those tiny steps is supposed to lend a significant enough advantage to the individual that they eventually become the norm. Especially when there are multiple parts working together. I mean no matter how simple your diagram looks, we're still talking about multiple parts working together. What was the competitive advantage when each of these parts was evolving seperately?
You mention a clorophyll as a light sensitive cell. Ok so you can't just slap one on the forehead of an eye-less creature and wait until it evolves into an eye. Why would it suddenly appear on the creature's forehead? Does it suddenly appear with some sort of nerve connection pre-attached to the creature's brain so that it knows when it is light or dark?
|
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 08/18/2004 : 23:52:32
|
you do realize what a loon that guy comes off as just from those quotes right?
"when evidence of UFO activity is brought forward it is shot down as erroneous or a hoax! THE GOVERNMENT IS CONDUCTING SECRET INTERSTELLER SLAVE TRADES WITH BEINGS FROM ZARDON-5!!!!!!!!!!"
yes lucy and other ancient fossils are incomplete. is this some kind of shock to you? that's probably because you are woefully under educated. complete fossils are more rare than virgins in vegas.
you are not poking holes in evolution, you are quoting from a loony toon who is babbling a bunch of hearsay and conjecture without any evidence whatsoever. |
|
|
|
darwin
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
USA
5454 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 01:40:08
|
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
Further complicating the case for australopithecines are out of place fossils. An elbow bone was discovered at Kanapoi in Kenya, entombed in a geologic stratum lower than where australopithecines are found. The fossil has been dated 4.5 million years old. The problem? It appears perfectly modern. Based on computer analysis, Henry M McHenry of the University of California, Davis, stated: "The results show that the Kanapoi specimen, which is 4 to 4.5 million years old, is indistinguishable from modern Homo Sapiens..."
This part of why I didn't want to be in this conversation. This author that you're quoting has pulled out a fragment of a sentence from Henry McHenry, a man that I know and respect. If you do a google search of this fragment, the quote is repeated like parrots on many anti-evolution web sites.
So, I looked at the original paper in Science (Oct 1975, Vol 190, p. 425). That quote is from his analysis of the forelimbs of multiple fossil species. He analyzed many different bones. What the full sentence means is that the forelimbs of the Kanapoi specimen is not much different than modern Homo sapiens and the quote goes on to say they are very different than "knuckle-walking apes (chimpanzees and gorillas)". So this fossil species walked more like us than modern apes. In his summary, he says that skeletons of the early hominids WERE NOT identical to modern humans, but the style of locomotion was. And, that their brain sizes WERE significantly smaller. (I would paste the summary if I could.)
So, in summary somebody found a fragment in Henry McHenry's paper, which out of context supported their anti-evolution belief. Even though the paper specifically contradicts the interpretation of that fragment. Then for the next 30 years this lie gets repeated and spread by people repeating the lie. It's an injustice to a very sweet man and more evidence that the proponents of creationism aren't seeking the truth, just persuasive arguments. |
Edited by - darwin on 08/19/2004 01:47:37 |
|
|
|
n/a
deleted
4894 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 04:16:07
|
quote:
Originally posted by harringk
Ok, back to this. Let me start by quoting my source "Tornado in a Junkyard, the relentless myth of Darwinism" by James Perloff.
.............and you can stop right there...
I don't mean to sound bitter, cold, or cruel, but I am, so that's how it comes out.
|
|
|
|
Ebb Vicious
* Dog in the Sand *
USA
1162 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 09:30:42
|
the bottom line is evolution is not up for debate any more than the earth being round or orbiting around the sun. these are facts which can only be disputed by the painfully (and willfully) ignorant.
some blame can be put on public schools when you're younger, but as an adult you have the responsibility to educate yourself. |
|
|
|
Cheeseman1000
>> Denizen of the Citizens Band <<
Iceland
8201 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 10:12:12
|
Interesing statistic in the paper today. Scientists have calculated the possibility of a new universe starting. As they put it, 'it could just appear in your breakfast cereal'.
The figure was one divided by 100million trillion trillion trillion trillion, thought to be the smallest figure in use in physics.
Kind regards,
Dr. Simon
Specialist In Broken Hearts |
|
|
|
apl4eris
~ Abstract Brain ~
USA
4800 Posts |
Posted - 08/19/2004 : 10:51:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Cheeseman1000
Interesing statistic in the paper today. Scientists have calculated the possibility of a new universe starting. As they put it, 'it could just appear in your breakfast cereal'.
The figure was one divided by 100million trillion trillion trillion trillion, thought to be the smallest figure in use in physics.
Thats' it.
I'm creating a new breakfast cereal, with crunchy baby-universe branes.
Complete with:
23 Exciting Fruity Dimensions!
and
Purple Marshmallow Swirling Membranes!
If you find the Magic Disappearing Graviton, send it in for a free weekend pass for 4 to EuroDisney!
AND!!
If you can draw a Calabai-Yau space, just like the one Captain Universe's Invisible Cloak, you get a free copy of the new Trump boardgame!
Crap! It'll need a name...
*COMING SOON*
A mouse in a trap takes a long time to realize he’s in a trap. After that something in him never stops trembling. -John Berger |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
science is not magic or coincidence
