Evolution Vs Not-evolution

[LongLiveYorke 38]

Here's an interesting find that was published in Nature recently. Supposedly, it is a missing link between aquatic animals and the first land animals. It is the skeleton of a fish that demonstrates many land-animal characterizes and is named Tiktaalik. If this is indeed what the scientists say it is then it is one more piece filling in the "gap" in the fossil record. Discuss.http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/...artner=homepageAlso, for those willing to rebut, the following Creationist site is cited in the article:http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/Enjoy.

[Canada 0]

Here's an interesting find that was published in Nature recently. Supposedly, it is a missing link between aquatic animals and the first land animals. It is the skeleton of a fish that demonstrates many land-animal characterizes and is named Tiktaalik. If this is indeed what the scientists say it is then it is one more piece filling in the "gap" in the fossil record. Discuss.http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/...artner=homepageAlso, for those willing to rebut, the following Creationist site is cited in the article:http://emporium.turnpike.net/C/cs/Enjoy.

BBC version as the NY times may require a loginhttp://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4879672.stm

[suitedinc 0]

What do you folks make of the fact that a lot of these animals were found intact, with skin and all?

[crowTrobot 2]

What do you folks make of the fact that a lot of these animals were found intact, with skin and all?

you'll have to be more specific, although i assume you're referring to frozen mammoths or something else geologically very recent. nobody has ever found an animal with skin intact in more ancient strata.

[suitedinc 0]

I'm referring to the animals found in yorke's article. I have seen the same reference in other places regarding this most recent find.

[crowTrobot 2]

I'm referring to the animals found in yorke's article. I have seen the same reference in other places regarding this most recent find.

where does it say anything was found intact with skin? sounds like they found fossilized imprints of scales and fossilized bones.

[phlegm 6]

First of all im no scientist nor bible scholar so i wont try to argue specifics with either side. I believe in a creator but i also believe evolution. Evolution is just the way the creator built this world. The bible says we were created in seven days. In other words the creator made things over time. In fact im not even sure creation is even complete yet. The fabric of this planet is far from perfect. There are destructive forces ongoing continually. Earthquakes, tornadoes,hurricanes, and deadly viruses just to name a few. If creation is in fact complete, whoevers responsible left quite the mess.

[BuffDan 0]

First of all im no scientist nor bible scholar so i wont try to argue specifics with either side. I believe in a creator but i also believe evolution. Evolution is just the way the creator built this world. The bible says we were created in seven days. In other words the creator made things over time. In fact im not even sure creation is even complete yet. The fabric of this planet is far from perfect. There are destructive forces ongoing continually. Earthquakes, tornadoes,hurricanes, and deadly viruses just to name a few. If creation is in fact complete, whoevers responsible left quite the mess.

For some reason, your last line reminded me of a quote form the simpsons, by grandpa simpson when he went into a porta-potty: "This elevator only goes to the basement. And someone made an awful mess down there."Anyways, good to see that someone else thinks that evolution and God are not incompatible. If one can believe in an all powerful creator, it seems like believing that that all powerful creator can build a system where life forms evolve should be no problem at all.

[timwakefield 68]

Evolution and God are not incompatible, if you're willing to accept that God has not interfered since the Big Bang. And yes I know that the theory of evolution only describes the propagation of species on earth. The point is that the universe has had no need for a creator since prior to the Big Bang (and it can only be said that we had a need for one prior to the Big Bang because nothing can be known about the universe at that time).

[copernicus 0]

Evolution and God are not incompatible, if you're willing to accept that God has not interfered since the Big Bang. And yes I know that the theory of evolution only describes the propagation of species on earth. The point is that the universe has had no need for a creator since prior to the Big Bang (and it can only be said that we had a need for one prior to the Big Bang because nothing can be known about the universe at that time).

Well, just because Im in the mood to nit .... (sorry Timmuh, had to go there)Macroevolution is incompatible with some people's concept of god, ie the Bible literalists who would insist that man and dinosaurs lived at the same time, young earth, etc. I agree it is not incompatible with the existence of SOME god, since nothing can be proven incompatible with SOME god.

[timwakefield 68]

I agree it is not incompatible with the existence of SOME god, since nothing can be proven incompatible with SOME god.

That was what I was getting at: that you can believe in both God and evolution only if you reject that the story of creation as told in Genesis is a literal truth.

[mrdannyg 274]

That was what I was getting at: that you can believe in both God and evolution only if you reject that the story of creation as told in Genesis is a literal truth.

the way this was rationalized to me, was certain things are not included in the Bible if God didn't deem them important. like dinosaurs weren't mentioned because they weren't really important according to God's judgment, and who are we to question it? He's God!Meh, that's how my rabbi, with a master's in biological something or other explained both the lack of mention of dinosaurs, and Adam and Eve.That one always bugged me. They aren't related or anything, so they can make babies. But didn't they only have two kids? Two MALE kids? what's up with that?

[copernicus 0]

the way this was rationalized to me, was certain things are not included in the Bible if God didn't deem them important. like dinosaurs weren't mentioned because they weren't really important according to God's judgment, and who are we to question it? He's God!Meh, that's how my rabbi, with a master's in biological something or other explained both the lack of mention of dinosaurs, and Adam and Eve.That one always bugged me. They aren't related or anything, so they can make babies. But didn't they only have two kids? Two MALE kids? what's up with that?

Its hard to believe with all the animals mentioned that some of the largest to ever exist would be less important. Your rabbi might argue, "meh, bubbala, he knew they would be extinct, so why waste the parchment". But that then begs the question of why they would have been made so large in the first place, and also the questions that would be raised when their fossils turned up and apparently predated the apparent emergence of apparent man.

[Jimshoen 0]

If you found a watch on the street would you ask yourself - I wonder what this evolved from? Or would you think, I wonder who dropped this here and think it was created by a designer and craftsman.

[MDXS 0]

If you found a watch on the street would you ask yourself - I wonder what this evolved from? Or would you think, I wonder who dropped this here and think it was created by a designer and craftsman.

So you think of people as cold, soulless machines? You're sick.

[timwakefield 68]

If you found a watch on the street would you ask yourself - I wonder what this evolved from? Or would you think, I wonder who dropped this here and think it was created by a designer and craftsman.

Because everybody knows that watches are man-made, you would be an idiot to believe that a watch you found was naturally formed. Please read "The Blind Watchmaker," by Richard Dawkins. He addresses the creationist argument that because a thing is complex it must have been fashioned by an intelligent being....in fact, he addresses this notion starting with the title of the book.

[hotbacon 0]

If you found a watch on the street would you ask yourself - I wonder what this evolved from? Or would you think, I wonder who dropped this here and think it was created by a designer and craftsman.

I prefer to liken the universe to a tree though. Still very complex.If you found a tree in the middle of the forest, would you think that it is there naturally or that someone created it?Guess I just disproved god huh!

[Jimshoen 0]

Because everybody knows that watches are man-made, you would be an idiot to believe that a watch you found was naturally formed. Please read "The Blind Watchmaker," by Richard Dawkins. He addresses the creationist argument that because a thing is complex it must have been fashioned by an intelligent being....in fact, he addresses this notion starting with the title of the book.

Dawkins' notion of evolution comes from his mind. The logic goes like this: Dawkins has in his mind a model of how evolution should work. He can create a computer program that approximates how the model in his mind works. Therefore, we are to believe this is how evolution works in the real world. Dawkins states the argument himself in these words: "There is another mathematical space filled, not with nine-gened biomorphs but with flesh and blood animals made of billions of cells, each containing tens of thousands of genes. This is not biomorph space but real genetic space." The assumption is that real genetic space is just like mental or computer biomorph space. Not so. In biomorph space, all variation is caused by only one mechanism, and the distance between intermediate forms is always a reachable mutation away. This is not what we observe in real genetic space. First, in real genetic space there are two distinct methods of producing offspring. In the normal case, the offspring's genetic material is a subset of the genetic material of the parents. When natural selection acts so as to favor certain varieties produced in this way, we call it micro-evolution. In the other, much rarer, case, the offspring's genetic material contains something that is not found in the parents. When natural selection acts so as to favor certain varieties produced in this way, we call it macro-evolution. Observed evolution is always micro-evolution. Second, we observe in real genetic space that there are natural limits to biological change. Dogs produce dogs and fruit flies produce fruit flies. Real genetic space has clusters of isolated living things, with a gap around them that keeps them distant from each other. Third, in real genetic space natural selection works in micro-evolution because the genetic material can express itself in the physiology of the offspring so as to give it an advantage.In macro-evolution, a large change is deleterious to the offspring, but a small enough change to do no harm is also too small to find enough expression for natural selection to make a difference. That is why observed mutations only swing left and right a little bit about the mean. Natural selection doesn't come into play for these small changes. Note that these are observed, objective properties of real genetic space, and not simply subjective beliefs. In the following chapter, Dawkins draws on his argument to have us also imagine the evolution he has in his mind. He says: "Could the human eye have arisen directly from something slightly different from itself, something that we may call X? ... yes, provided only that the difference between the modern eye and its immediate predecessor X is sufficiently small." As shown above, small macro-evolutionary steps are not observed in the real world. But Dawkins makes it plain he's not in the real world: "If you have a mental picture of X and you find it implausible that the human eye could have arisen directly from it, this simply means that you have chosen the wrong X." This clearly shows X exists only in the mind. He goes on: "Is there a continuous series of Xs connecting the modern human eye to a state with no eye at all? ... yes ... You might feel that 1,000 Xs is ample, but if you need more steps to make the total transition plausible in your mind, ... assume 10,000 Xs ... allow yourself 100,000 and so on." So disregard reality, use his computer program as a model for reality, and make it "plausible in your mind." Meanwhile, real genetic space will not allow even a single X; there's too much distance between Xs for macro-evolution to jump. Since Dawkins is viewing the world through the lenses of his computer model, rather than starting with what is observable, we should not be surprised when he says "... not a single case is known to me of a complex organ that could not have been formed by numerous successive slight modifications. I do not believe that such a case will ever be found. If it is ... I shall cease to believe in Darwinism." As long as he is constructing models in his mind, rather than looking at observable reality, this remains a safe statement. The counter argument to all this is typically that evolution works too slowly, in too small increments to be observed, and/or, in Dawkins' words: "just because there is no explanation doesn't mean it is not inexplicable." If it can't be observed, if it can't be measured, if it goes against what is observed, then how can it be called science? How can it be called fact?

[LongLiveYorke 38]

That's some nice plagiarism you've got there, Jimshoen. Alos, it's all rubbish.

[copernicus 0]

I havent read Dawkins. The excerpts seem a bit self-contradictory to me, but its especially interesting, since there are credible theories of the development of the eye/optic nerve that have observed transitional forms that start from as simple a structure as a hole, and pinhole camera type effects.

[timwakefield 68]

Dawkins' notion of evolution comes from his mind. The logic goes like this: Dawkins has in his mind a model of how evolution should work. He can create a computer program that approximates how the model in his mind works. Therefore, we are to believe this is how evolution works in the real world.

I posted this a couple months ago:

From "The Blind Watchmaker," by Richard Dawkins. "There are people in the world who desperately want not to have to believe in Darwinism. They seem to fall into three main classes. First, there are those who, for religious reasons, want evolution itself to be untrue. Second, there are those who have no reason to deny that evolution has happened but who, often for political or ideological reasons, find Darwin's theory of its mechanism distasteful. Of these, some find the idea of natural selection unacceptably harsh and ruthless; others confuse natural selection with randomness, and hence 'meaninglessness', which offends their dignity; yet others confuse Darwinism with Social Darwinism, which has racist and other disagreeable overtones. Third, there are people, including many working in what they call (often as a singular noun) 'the media', who just like seeing applecarts upset, perhaps because it makes good journalistic copy; and Darwinism has become sufficiently established and respectable to be a tempting applecart."Whatever the motive, the consequence is that if a reputable scholar breathes so much as a hint of criticism of some detail of current Darwinian theory, the fact is eagerly seized on and blown up out of all proportion. So strong is this eagerness, it is as though there were a powerful amplifier, with a finely tuned microphone selectively listening out for anything that sounds the tiniest bit like opposition to Darwinism. This is most unfortunate, for serious argument and criticism is a vitally important part of any science, and it would be tragic if scholars felt the need to muzzle themselves because of the microphones. Needless to say the amplifier, though powerful, is not hi-fi: there is plenty of distortion! A scientist who cautiously whispers some slight misgiving about a current nuance of Darwinism is liable to hear his distorted and barely recognizable words booming and echoing out through the eagerly awaiting loudspeakers."Eldredge and Gould don't whisper [in their critique of Darwinian theory]. They speak out, with eloquence and power! What they say is often pretty subtle, but the message that gets across is that something is wrong with Darwinism. Hallelujah, 'the scientists' said it themselves! The editor of Biblical Creation has written:it is undeniable that the credibility of our religious and scientific position has been greatly strengthened by the recent lapse in neo-Darwiniam morale. And this is something we must exploit to the full."Eldridge and Gould have both been doughty champions in the fight against redneck creationism. They have shouted their complaints at the misuse of their own words, only to find that, for this part of their message, the microphones suddenly went dead on them......"

[Jadaki 0]

Men & Apes interbreeding

[mtdesmoines 3]

"The spiral galaxies Should Have long ago unspiraled, and the uneven dispersion of matter in the universe Should Have long ago dispersed."This is made up. He gives no reason why a spiral galaxy should "unspiral." That's because there isn't one. And regarding his second point.....the galaxies are spread out very evenly.

Hmm. ... you don't find the universe to be oddly well-mannered considering that it burst into being from nothing and chaos?

A scientific principle is one which has been arrived at through observation and testing. You do not come up with a theory first, and then try to find scientific backing for it....unless you are practicing pseudo-science.

Right. I mean, evolution as a scientific principle has been well-proven. Glad we didn't come up with a theory, then try to find scientific backing for it.

[copernicus 0]

Men & Apes interbreeding

Since many anti-evolutionists have argued that speciation never occurs, and that the definition of a species is inability to interbreed (not simply an inclination not to), they are led to the inevitable conclusion that we and chimps are the same species.

[DonkSlayer 1]

that the definition of a species is inability to interbreed (not simply an inclination not to)

I thought I learned from taking bio classes that this was the case...but we have mules...ligers....