Origin of the species, where do you stand?

[Amazon 7]

Quote

There aren’t enough “billions of years” to explain away some of this stuff. No matter how much you want it to be true.

There are literally BILLIONS of niches in the fabric of life that species in one form or another fill. When there is an open niche.. LIFE will fill it in one way or another.. That does not take GOD's hand to do... it takes animals or plants that can thrive in that environment.. those that do not adapt to that environment perish.. those that do adapt become more adept at filling their niche.

[pajarito 0]

Quote

Quote

I realize that it is very upsetting for something to fall apart that you've always been told.

The only thing I find upsetting is otherwise intelligent, educated people in industrialized nations in the 21st Century sacrificing the rational side of their intellects to enable the burning of witches. It's embarrassing. More than that, it's shameful.

Who's burning witches?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

I think the current evolutionary theory is doing fine. Perhaps it is your understanding of it that requires modification?

What's wrong with my understanding of it Jack? I didn't make this stuff up. I just read more books than the one I was handed in Biology class depicting an imagined pictoral progression from primate to man and telling you this "is" the way it happened.

[billvon 2,400]

>Perhaps it is your understanding of it that requires modification?

It's difficult to get anyone to understand something when their faith requires them to not understand it. I could present a lineage of hundreds of fossils showing every single skeletal change from the most recent common ancestor between us and chimpanzees and modern day - and a creationist would say "the 731st fossil is missing a toe. Too bad evolutionists can't explain that! Their theory is clearly full of holes."

[pajarito 0]

Quote

There are literally BILLIONS of niches in the fabric of life that species in one form or another fill. When there is an open niche.. LIFE will fill it in one way or another.. That does not take GOD's hand to do... it takes animals or plants that can thrive in that environment.. those that do not adapt to that environment perish.. those that do adapt become more adept at filling their niche.

I agree with you 100% on that one. That's called natural selection. Observable...demonstrated...proven. That, however, is not what NDT is trying to call macro-evolution. It cannot lead to the large scale transpeciation that NDT tries to predict. No matter how the pictures of the pretty horses seem to fit together in a line. Again...I'm NOT arguing for God here. I could but that would be another discussion.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Tuning this back on topic.

I believe evolution does exist. I honestly think it's intentional blindness to look at nature and not see how genetics and "natural" selection influences change of species. To ignorantly recite back quotes from Genesis without thinking about logic and science is foolish. Evolution does exist.

However... I do believe God had a role in some of the creation. Life is VERY complex for just random chance to have created.

Nothing more than a Piss poor cop out

Natural Selection ALL THE WAY, what we dont understand at present does not and never will be the cuase of a god (of any persuation).
I do not beleive in "The God of The Gaps", just because we have yet to explain somthing in scientific terms does in no way mean we will not explain it when he have a better understanding of physics and the way the Universe works.
We are but ignorant scientists fumbling in a semi lit room. Two hundred years ago the Room was nearly Pitch Black, Darwin has struck a small match to help light the way. Science Will shine a Still brighter light in years to come.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[Amazon 7]

Uh.... do you think if human society collapses.. that remaining humans in Australia will evolve to the what the other creatures there are and become marsupial???

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Uh.... do you think if human society collapses.. that remaining humans in Australia will evolve to the what the other creatures there are and become marsupial???

NO STUPID computer nerd, mars you pee als have already eve olved
the remaining aussies will devolve back to ape"like" creatures that drag their knuckles and fart, burb and swear and drink beers all day.
Actually that's happening as we speak

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

> I could present a lineage of hundreds of fossils showing every single skeletal change from the most recent common ancestor between us and chimpanzees and modern day -

If you could do that, I'd be amazed. And you'd be rich.

There just isn't that much out there in terms of good fossils.

good thing too. if it took that long for biological waste to break down we'd already be in trouble. Or at least our artwork would be a bit freaky.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rhys 0]

I reckon That 1 man made everything for men to abuse at thier own discretion and that he did it in 7 days and that was only 10000 yars ago and we can shoot people coz god said it's all good. Oh thou shall not murder hmm how did we get around that one last time?

yeah all in the snap of the fingers.

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power, then the world will see peace." - 'Jimi' Hendrix

[billvon 2,400]

>If you could do that, I'd be amazed. And you'd be rich.
>There just isn't that much out there in terms of good fossils.

Hmm. As of 1999, there were 150 relatively complete Homo erectus fossils, 90 Australopithecus robustus fossils, 150 Australopithecus afarensis fossils and 500 Neanderthal fossils alone. (These are fossils that represent more than 25% of a total skeleton.) I don't think anyone got rich.

The big problem now is that geology generally doesn't keep skeletons together - most fossils are fragmentary. There are well over 10,000 fragmentary hominid fossils (i.e. groups of bones found.) So a lot of assembly is still ongoing - and we're finding more all the time.

Right now there's a pretty complete history of fossils through the following stages of humanity:

Sahelanthropus tchadensis
Ardipithecus ramidus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus afarensis
Kenyanthropus platyops
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus robustus
Australopithecus boisei
Homo habilis
Homo georgicus
Homo erectus
Homo ergaster
Homo antecessor
Homo heidelbergensis
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo floresiensis
Homo sapiens

We don't have a complete fossil record for _every_ stage of our development, but we're getting very close. Heck, a relatively complete Homo floresiensis was found only a few years ago.

We will, at some point, have a skeletal representation of each stage of development that can be taken to any desired level of detail. I have confidence this will not faze creationists, although they may have to change their tactics.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

> I have confidence this will not faze creationists, although they may have to change their tactics.

They already have, it's called "intelligent design"If you havnt already Bill read up on it, it's funny

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[jakee 1,255]

Quote

I realize that it is very upsetting for something to fall apart that you've always been told. However, intellectual honesty requires the following:

If you've actually read this thread and you think its evolution thats buckling under the pressure of truth then there really is no hope for you.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

or at least hope for some modification to the current one (again).

You say that like it's a bad thing. The underpinnings of Science is that therories can be and often are modified in light of new scientific EVIDENCE (look it up it's a very important word). Many Many theories have been modified and or completely changed based on new and better scientific explorationsGot somthing new you'd like to add

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

• Quote

[billvon 2,400]

>They already have, it's called "intelligent design" . . .

That's one angle. Another one I have heard is the "God put them there to test our faith" angle. Still another is that they were all formed 1000 years ago, and all dating methods are wrong.

Which is one cool thing about being a creationist - so many options to pick from, without the constraint that they have to make any scientific sense.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

>T
Which is one cool thing about being a creationist - so many options to pick from, without the constraint that they have to make any sense.

or be supported by experimental evidence

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[rehmwa 2]

That response was anything but pithy(cus)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

There isn't an argument for creationism in any sense that any scientist would recognize, and there is no objective evidence at all in favor of an "intelligent designer". Just because the evidence for evolution isn't absolute doesn't mean it's not overwhelming.

You put your faith in one and I put mine in another. I just wish you'd call it what it is instead of hiding behind what you want/wish/desperately need to be "good science."

Faith is what you believe without any shred of objective evidence. You need it for your beliefs. I have real evidence for mine so faith is unnecessary.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Royd 0]

Quote

How bout them new Cogs/Dats

Dat's just another cog in the evolutionary wheel.

[pajarito 0]

Lucy (Australopithecus afarensis)
- Same wrist anatomy as knuckle walking chimpanzees and gorillas.
- Skeletal anatomy indicates a stooped gait similar to rolling knuckle walk of chimpanzees.
- Hands & feet misrepresented as human in statues and textbooks. The fingers and toes are actually long and curved even more so than apes today.
- The big toe sticks out as in chimpanzees. They may have walked more upright than most apes but not in a human manner. The walk is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee.
- The Lucy footprints cannot fit the footprints at Laetoli.
- CAT scans of inner ear canals (posture and balance) showed they did not walk habitually upright.

Dr. Richard Leakey, probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, said that Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of Paris”. He also said that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.

Dr. Charles Oxnard, Professor of Anatomy and Human Biology at the University of Western Australia said “The various australopithecines are, indeed, more different from both African apes and humans in most features than these latter are from each other. Part of the basis of this acceptance has been the fact that even opposing investigators have found these large differences as they too, used techniques and research designs that were less biased by prior notions as to what the fossils might have been.” Dr Oxnard completed the most sophisticated computer analysis of australopithecine fossils ever undertaken, and concluded that they have nothing to do with the ancestry of man whatsoever and are simply an extinct form of ape. All he could really confirm was that “The australopithecines are unique.”

Dr. Donald Johanson (the discoverer of Lucy Australopithecus afarensis said “There is no such thing as a total lack of bias. I have it; everybody has it. The fossil hunter in the field has it. …In everybody who is looking for hominids, there is a strong urge to learn more about where the human line started. If you are working back at around three million, as I was, that is very seductive, because you begin to get an idea that that is where Homo did start. You begin straining your eyes to find Homo traits in fossils of that age. …Logical, maybe, but also biased. I was trying to jam evidence of dates into a pattern that would support conclusions about fossils which, on closer inspection, the fossils themselves would not sustain.” Johanson went on to confess: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence.”

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Dr. Richard Leakey, probably the best-known fossil-anthropologist in the world, said that Lucy’s skull is so incomplete that most of it is “imagination made of plaster of Paris”. He also said that no firm conclusion could be drawn about what species Lucy belonged to.
s: “It is hard for me now to admit how tangled in that thicket I was. But the insidious thing about bias is that it does make one deaf to the cries of other evidence.”

I LOVE selective quoting creationists do it ALL the time.
All I see is that the Dr is admitting that he is uncertain where a particular fossil fits in the fossil record. It's a scientist admitting that he i unclear of the specifity of some evidence, what's you point in higlighting it?

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[pajarito 0]

Quote

It's a scientist admitting that he i unclear of the specifity of some evidence, what's you point in higlighting it?

It's just seems to be the trend with evolutionists and evolution science publications to report any find (as fast as possible) in the supposed evolutionary chain as the proof they need to put any doubt to rest only to have it shot down as either inconclusive or fraudulent.

e.g. It took 40 years from the time of its discovery to expose the fraud of Piltdown Man. Part of a human skull and an orangutan jaw doctored to look like fossils. Why did it take that long? One might suspect that evolutionists are so intent on making their theory work that scientific objectivity often times gets left behind.

[Squeak 17]

Quote

Quote

It's a scientist admitting that he i unclear of the specifity of some evidence, what's you point in higlighting it?

It's just seems to be the trend with evolutionists and evolution science publications to report any find (as fast as possible) in the supposed evolutionary chain as the proof they need to put any doubt to rest only to have it shot down as either inconclusive or fraudulent.

e.g. It took 40 years from the time of its discovery to expose the fraud of Piltdown Man. Part of a human skull and an orangutan jaw doctored to look like fossils. Why did it take that long? One might suspect that evolutionists are so intent on making their theory work that scientific objectivity often times gets left behind.

That's true in almost all personal endevours.
Objectivity is quite possiblely the single biggest lacking point in all creationist theories, Faith in religions has little if anything to do with objectivity.
Science (not singular people in science) whilst not perfect, is at least ready and willing to stand itself up to scutiny and peer review, whilst it may have taken 40 years for pit man to be debunct, is was science that did so.

You are not now, nor will you ever be, good enough to not die in this sport (Sparky)
My Life ROCKS!
How's yours doing?

[pajarito 0]

Of course I think the Bible has stood the test of time and scrutiny. However, as I've said before, I'm not arguing for Christianity here. I'm just showing the gaping holes in the NDT. Believe what you want. Just don't tell me that it is all "objective."

[billvon 2,400]

> Of course I think the Bible has stood the test of time and scrutiny.

If you truly believe that - which came first, cattle (bovines) or people (homo sapiens?)

>It took 40 years from the time of its discovery to expose the fraud of
>Piltdown Man. Part of a human skull and an orangutan jaw doctored to
>look like fossils. Why did it take that long?

It took almost 300 years from the time Newton published his Principia for Einstein to discover that Newton's Laws were "a fraud" (i.e were not 100% correct in all cases.) Why did that take so long? Have you stopped believing in gravity as a result?

It took almost 40 years to discover that the DNA-first model (i.e. DNA expresses RNA which expresses proteins) is not the only way proteins are expressed. Why did it take that long? Do you now not believe that DNA has anything to do with human development? After all, in your terms, DNA is now a fraud.

Scientists are like anyone else - most are good people, some are frauds. Occasionally, pranksters try to screw with the data to get themselves some glory - the Fleischmann/Pons cold fusion experiment and Dr. Woo Suk Hwang's cloning scandal come to mind. Those frauds did not prove that chemistry is a ruse, or that cloning is impossible. Indeed, they don't prove science is a fraud any more than Fred Phelps proves all christians are gay-hating bigots, or that Cardinal Law proves that all christians support pedophiles.

The reality is that a huge quantity of valid, peer-reviewed research done in the past 40 years in half a dozen disciplines fits the outlines of evolution. Which is why scientists "believe" in it. A biologist not believing in evolution is akin to a skydiver not believing in gravity, or a pilot not believing that the earth is round. Their misconceptions make their job harder, since reality always intrudes with real-world examples of evolution, a round earth and a force of gravity that always works.