The Platypus.

In simpler terms... us?

I don't know that I'm any more eloquent but... What we're talking about is called "convergent evolution". Thoughout history we see the same basic templates coming to light. Wings for flight. Armor for defense. Eyes to see. Legs to walk. We see chameleons and cuttlefish that both can change the color of their skin and both in completely different ways. Bats and birds can both fly, one with skin and one with feathers. The octopus and the human can both see and both see in color yet the octopus has a much better eye. Ankylosaurus and the turtle both have almost full body armor. The Berkely evolution site says this very well: Since a phylogenetic tree is a hypothesis about evolutionary relationships, we want to use characters that are reliable indicators of common ancestry to build that tree. We use homologous characters—characters in different organisms that are similar because they were inherited from a common ancestor that also had that character. An example of homologous characters is the four limbs of tetrapods. Birds, bats, mice, and crocodiles all have four limbs. Sharks and bony fish do not. The ancestor of tetrapods evolved four limbs, and its descendents have inherited that feature—so the presence of four limbs is a homology. Not all characters are homologies. For example, birds and bats both have wings, while mice and crocodiles do not. Does that mean that birds and bats are more closely related to one another than to mice and crocodiles? No. When we examine bird wings and bat wings closely, we see that there are some major differences. Bat wings consist of flaps of skin stretched between the bones of the fingers and arm. Bird wings consist of feathers extending all along the arm. These structural dissimilarities suggest that bird wings and bat wings were not inherited from a common ancestor with wings. This idea is illustrated by the phylogeny below, which is based on a large number of other characters. Bird and bat wings are analogous—that is, they have separate evolutionary origins, but are superficially similar because they evolved to serve the same function. Analogies are the result of convergent evolution. Interestingly, though bird and bat wings are analogous as wings, as forelimbs they are homologous. Birds and bats did not inherit wings from a common ancestor with wings, but they did inherit forelimbs from a common ancestor with forelimbs.

No, I don't agree with that Sunshine. We know the halflives of these isotopes exactly. So when bits of these substances are trapped within rock we can very accurately measure the amounts of the isotopes that are present and how much of the remainder is present. We don't have to wait 100 years. Or won't nuclear power work for another 100 years? It's all the same process in one form or another.

I wanted to speak directly to this point. There is lots of fighting about the ToE in the scientific community. There is no fighting about whether or not evolution has occurred. There is massive fighting about HOW it occurred. Fast, slow, fast and slow, what pressures are involved, when what took place... Thing is, in the scientific community you can make your name in one of two ways. You can either discover something or you can find out someone else was wrong. Finding out that Darwin was wrong would win someone a Nobel prize and worldwide fame and fortune. It's just that evolution is something so obvious, so true, that no one even tries to disprove it anymore. It would be like trying to prove that objects don't fall. Life evolves. We evolved. Peek's claims that we don't have proof are simply false. But here's what I'd like to do. Let's pick one animal. One organism and I'll try to find the proof that it has evolved and provide it. Then Peek can show me how that evidence is faulty. One modern animal, a bird? Whale? Horse? Human? What'll it be?

There are all sorts of ways that microscopic bugs transfer DNA. And it's not reproduction. We, on the other hand, pass along our genes in one way and one way only... reproduction. As do all mammals. Reproduction. It just didn't seem germane to introduce all these other things when trying to make a point. I have maybe a paragraph before someone gets bored, not a couple of weeks. So please excuse my trying to be brief and give the cliffs notes version of things. Evolution is a big messy web. Not a linear progression. Some of the branches die out. Others continue to form new lines. It's all part of evolution. There's no doubt it has happened, is happening and will happen as long as there are living things. No doubt.

Don't be too jealous. It's followed by winter which usually goes on too long.

I had to drop a class before the deadline in order to remove myself from nonsense once... But I'd be highly curious. What words could they possibly have needed to include in a textbook and in what context? I simply can't imagine a reason to use profanity in any teaching setting other than creative writing.

No. Remember the dice? All those throws? You're assuming that once the chain of life begins then the throws of the dice are going to be the same. That's not true. If there had been two different sets of life on the planet each starting from an original ancestor then the throws of the dice would have been different too. Each would have taken widely divergent paths and we'd have two completely different types of life on the planet. We don't. Your hypothesis has been falsified. Especially if you're trying to say that we have one branch of humans descended from one type of ancestor and one from another. That's simply not possible nor has it been evidenced in any of the studies done of worldwide DNA. We all come from the same basic melting pot of genes. Humanity is very homogeneous. It seems we all came from one common ancestor, one basic melting pot of life someplace back in the mists of time. And that basic DNA went on to replicate and become all the life we find on earth today. And no, it didn't just *poof* into existence. This isn't an evolution conversation any longer btw... it's now abiogenesis which is completely other. If you'd like to discuss it I'll certainly try but we should branch it off.

How? How does lining up fossils and your insistence that they might not line up that way change the fact that life evolved? If one of those fossils is out of place... how does that repudiate the theory? Peek, can you tell me what the Theory of Evolution states? Can you tell me why the word, "theory" does not mean "guess"? We do know. What you're saying is that you want to believe that mankind did not evolve, is that correct? Like men? Is that what you're getting at here? We do have that now. As has been stated the only way that genes can be transferred from one creature to another is by reproduction. We share 95-98% of them with chimpanzees. How do you explain this? How do you explain ERVs? How do you explain cladistics? How do you explain the fossil record leading up to human beings that fits in perfectly with common descent? How do YOU explain these things if not by evolution?

You're welcome. I can't imagine what you're going through although members of my family went through various cancers when I was much younger. I guess I just can't imagine what it's like to have it happen to myself. I do, however, completely relate to that "can't get off the couch" feeling. I've been there... two things. One, break things up into manageable chunks. Figure out things you can do in 15-minute intervals. Then get up for just 15 mins... do something and let yourself sit back down. For as long as you need to. Second, for priorities, just do the next thing. Don't worry about all the details and all the things that are starting to pile up, just do the next thing. Let that be your mantra... Do the Next Thing. If you can keep at it, slowly but surely you'll dig yourself out. And then, by the time you're feeling better you'll have managed to keep your head above water. And I just have a feeling you will be feeling better. :001_smile:

Peek, both may be true. An organism may evolve from part of a population while another part of that population still exists. Your want a standard of proof that can never be provided. If you can see all the mechanisms of evolution shown to you. If you can see fossil evidence of the progression of organisms... if you can see that the organisms represented by the fossils are no longer with us... then Peek... Where did they go if they didn't evolve into something else?

Peek, if we were to follow your line of reasoning we'd have to stare at the moon for a month without blinking to determine that it truly orbited the earth. We can see that it goes around the earth by taking in that it starts at one point and ends up back there after a month. We don't need to stare at it to know it doesn't go whipping off around the solar system randomly. The same is true of the fossil record. We don't need every organism that's ever been alive to know that they started at one point and ended at another. Common descent implies a pattern of gradual change and diversification throughout time. The hundreds of thousands of fossils that have been discovered are consistent with this pattern. More to the point, they are inconsistent with any other pattern. They are certainly inconsistent with a pattern of all life having been created at one point and staying as it was created forever. Those of you who have claimed to have found creationism because of the "evidence" let me ask this... is there any one of you who found creationism before you found the Bible?

Radiometric dating of various radioactive isotopes is conducted upon elements such as uranium-lead, potassium-argon, clorine-36 and others. You can learn more about it here if you wish.

I don't have specific evidence against a god/creator. I also don't have specific evidence against 40-foot tall invisible bunnies. But I know they exist because they eat fairies and have you seen any fairies lately? Thing is, if we based our positive beliefs, ie - I believe in *insert something here* because there is no evidence against it. You'd have to believe in dragons and fairies and elves and goblins and myriads of creatures and gods that you can't prove don't exist. What one needs is evidence FOR something in order to believe in it. Which leads us to your next question... What would I see as evidence? Manna that fell from the sky whenever people were starving. Cladistics that indicated creation instead of evolution. Unique genetic codes in every species instead of humans and chimps sharing 98% of their DNA (for example). Creatures that break the mold, so to speak, chimeras, griffins, animals with six limbs instead of tetrapods being the basic working template for all mammals. It would be hard to deny a creator if there were no way for life to exist without one. If the creator god is a personal god then I'd like to see an aboriginal come out of the jungle and tell us about Jesus. I'd expect the entire world to believe in one god, not the way we tend to follow our parent's or our culture's choices. I'd expect to see an amputee regrow a limb. Now let me ask, what evidence would lead you to believe that God does not exist?

I would recommend watching the PBS series on evolution. It's easy to digest and isn't unfriendly to religion. It's just factual. I would also recommend against reading Behe's book. It's been refuted and Behe himself was embarrassed on the stand in the Kitzmiller case. It's not balance, it's an attempt at getting nonscience in through the back door by making it popular with people. Scarlett, I'm sorry for your head hurting but science helped create some wonderful pain killers that can help :001_smile:. Seriously... I wish I could help you to see how I can understand the universe without a creator. It's an entirely different vision than you have. One that's not frightening nor one that makes your head hurt.

Thank you for asking. Originally I simply didn't care. I was raised to be open to religion. My family believed in God but didn't go to church. My father was Missouri Synod Lutheran and my mother hated the Catholic church. It was always put to me that someday I might marry a girl that was religious and I might choose to join her faith. I never questioned this. God was always there, I always assumed that, even though I wasn't religious that God was there for me. When asked what religion I was I answered, "Lutheran." I went to many weddings and funerals with my Catholic relatives and could kneel and genuflect with the best of them. But as I got older I began to question why I felt the need to answer, "Lutheran" when I wasn't religious. Why was I ashamed to be what I was? This was the beginning of my questioning. I read the Bible from cover to cover. I still keep one on the bookshelf here and read it from time to time. At one point I was able to quote chapter and verse from it. I went to Lutheran services for a time, even bringing my family as we thought the children could do with religious teaching. But the more I was exposed to it the more I questioned it. And then the religious right started to take over the Republican party. James Dobson and Focus on the Family started to become loud and angry. I realized that what they stood for, I was against. If there was a god out there he wouldn't have anything to do with harming homosexuals or watching what I did in my bedroom. He wouldn't condone taking a busload of children on a picnic and baptizing them without their parents consent. Fred Phelps does not speak for God. Slowly I came to realize that while I might consider believing in a god it was not the same god these people believed in. So I became an atheist in a sense. I knew what gods I didn't believe in. I didn't believe in Thor or Zeus or Ra or the god of Pat Robertson or Jerry Falwell or Ted Haggard. But I still wouldn't have classified myself as an atheist. I still would have said that yes, there was a Big Bang but surely a deity could have started it all. Evolution was true but it could have been directed. There were all these little copouts that let a god of the gaps creep in. But, as time went by I found that, more and more, I just didn't believe. Not just in specific gods but in any god. It's not like I ever needed a deity to give me purpose and I certainly didn't need a god to calm my nerves about dying. When the curtain goes down and the lights go out it's rather comforting to know that's it. There is nothing else, no grand inquisition awaiting me after death, just blackness. With that in mind I found that there just wasn't any evidence of a god, no need for a creator and no reason to cling to the notion that I needed a god. So all that was left was the pressure of others who insisted that I couldn't be a good person without God in my life. Ya know what? I'm a good person because it's the right thing to do, not out of fear of consequences from some unseen deity. Strike three. I simply don't believe. But how do I know? What's more likely? A magic being who can do anything and interferes in our lives daily but leaves no trace or no being? The God most people imagine can't exist because the traces it would leave would be all over the place and they just aren't there. Matter doesn't move by itself. Matter, energy... they don't appear and disappear. God isn't Harry Potter. Harry Potter isn't Harry Potter. Magic is an illusion. So, I believe, is god. I'd like to say I absolutely KNOW that there is no god. I can only say I absolutely know there aren't SOME gods. I believe there aren't any. I'm an atheist.

There are fossil hominids all over the place. Here's a list of prominent fossils... just to show you the scope. This list goes on for quite a bit longer after the link. To say there aren't any is a creationist fabrication. Please don't fall for it. TM 266-01-060-1, "Toumai", Sahelanthropus tchadensis Discovered by Ahounta Djimdoumalbaye in 2001 in Chad, in the southern Sahara desert. Estimated age is between 6 and 7 million years. This is a mostly complete cranium with a small brain (between 320 and 380 cc). (Brunet et al. 2002, Wood 2002) It has many primitive apelike features, such as the small brainsize, along with others, such as the brow ridges and small canine teeth, which are characteristic of later hominids. "ARA-VP, Sites 1, 6 & 7", Ardipithecus ramidus Discovered by a team led by Tim White, Berhane Asfaw and Gen Suwa (1994) in 1992 and 1993 at Aramis in Ethiopia. Estimated age is 4.4 million years. The find consisted of fossils from 17 individuals. Most remains are teeth, but there is also a partial lower jaw of a child, a partial cranium base, and partial arm bone from 2 individuals. ARA-VP-6/1 consists of 10 teeth from a single individual. ARA-VP-7/2 consists of parts of all three bones from the left arm of a single individual, with a mixture of hominid and ape features. KP 271, "Kanapoi Hominid", Australopithecus anamensis Discovered by Bryan Patterson in 1965 at Kanapoi in Kenya (Patterson and Howells 1967). This is a lower left humerus which is about 4.0 million years old. (Creationist arguments) KP 29281, Australopithecus anamensis Discovered by Peter Nzube in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya (Leakey et al. 1995). This is a lower jaw with all its teeth which is about 4.0 million years old. KP 29285, Australopithecus anamensis Discovered by Kamoya Kimeu in 1994 at Kanapoi in Kenya. This is a tibia, missing the middle portion of the bone, which is about 4.1 million years old. It is the oldest known evidence for hominid bipedalism. AL 129-1, Australopithecus afarensis Discovered by Donald Johanson in 1973 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981; Johanson and Taieb 1976). Estimated age is about 3.4 million years. This find consisted of portions of both legs, including a complete right knee joint which is almost a miniature of a human knee, but apparently belongs to an adult. AL 288-1, "Lucy", Australopithecus afarensis Discovered by Donald Johanson and Tom Gray in 1974 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981; Johanson and Taieb 1976). Its age is about 3.2 million years. Lucy was an adult female of about 25 years. About 40% of her skeleton was found, and her pelvis, femur (the upper leg bone) and tibia show her to have been bipedal. She was about 107 cm (3'6") tall (small for her species) and about 28 kg (62 lbs) in weight. (Creationist arguments) AL 333 Site, "The First Family", Australopithecus afarensis? Discovered in 1975 by Donald Johanson's team at Hadar in Ethiopia (Johanson and Edey 1981). Its age is about 3.2 million years. This find consisted of remains of at least 13 individuals of all ages. The size of these specimens varies considerably. Scientists debate whether the specimens belong to one species, two or even three. Johanson believes they belong to a single species in which males were considerably larger than females. Others believe that the larger specimens belong to a primitive species of Homo. "Laetoli footprints", Australopithecus afarensis? Discovered in 1978 by Paul Abell at Laetoli in Tanzania. Estimated age is 3.7 million years. The trail consists of the fossilized footprints of two or three bipedal hominids. Their size and stride length indicate that they were about 140 cm (4'8") and 120 cm (4'0") tall. Many scientists claim that the footprints are effectively identical to those of modern humans (Tattersall 1993; Feder and Park 1989), while others claim the big toes diverged slightly (like apes) and that the toe lengths are longer than humans but shorter than in apes (Burenhult 1993). The prints are tentatively assigned to A. afarensis, because no other hominid species is known from that time, although some scientists disagree with that classification. (Creationist arguments) AL 444-2, Australopithecus afarensis Discovered by Bill Kimbel and Yoel Rak in 1991 at Hadar in Ethiopia (Kimbel et al. 1994). Estimated age is 3 million years. This is a 70% complete skull of a large adult male, easily the most complete afarensis skull known, with a brain size of 550 cc. According to its finders, it strengthens the case that all the First Family fossils were members of the same species, because the differences between AL 444-2 and the smaller skulls in the collection are consistent with other sexually dimorphic hominoids. KNM-WT 40000, Kenyanthropus platyops Discovered by Justus Erus in 1999 at Lomekwi in Kenya (Leakey et al. 2001, Lieberman 2001). Estimated age is about 3.5 million years. This is a mostly complete, but heavily distorted, cranium with a large, flat face and small teeth. The brain size is similar to that of australopithecines. This fossil has considerable similarities with, and is possibly related to, the habiline fossil ER 1470. Taung 1, "Taung Child", Australopithecus africanus Discovered by Raymond Dart in 1924 at Taung in South Africa (Dart 1925). The find consisted of a full face, teeth and jaws, and an endocranial cast of the brain. It is between 2 and 3 million years old, but it and most other South African fossils are found in cave deposits that are difficult to date. The teeth of this skull showed it to be from an infant about 5 or 6 years old (it is now believed that australopithecines matured faster than humans, and that the Taung child was about 3). The brain size was 410 cc, and would have been around 440 cc as an adult. The large rounded brain, canine teeth which were small and not apelike, and the position of the foramen magnum(*) convinced Dart that this was a bipedal human ancestor, which he named Australopithecus africanus (African southern ape). Although the discovery became famous, Dart's interpretation was rejected by the scientific community until the mid-1940's, following the discovery of other similar fossils. (*) Anatomical digression: the foramen magnum is the hole in the skull through which the spinal cord passes. In apes, it is towards the back of the skull, because of their quadrupedal posture. In humans it is at the bottom of the skull because our head is balanced on top of a vertical column. In australopithecines it is also placed forward from the ape position, although not always as far forward as in humans. TM 1512, Australopithecus africanus (was Plesianthropus transvaalensis) Discovered by Robert Broom in 1936 at Sterkfontein in South Africa (Broom 1936). The second australopithecine fossil found, it consisted of parts of the face, upper jaw and braincase. Sts 5, "Mrs Ples", Australopithecus africanus Discovered by Robert Broom in 1947 at Sterkfontein in South Africa. It is a very well preserved cranium of an adult. It has usually been thought to be female, but there has been a recent claim that it is male. It is the best specimen of africanus. It is about 2.5 million years old, with a brain size of about 485 cc. (It has recently been claimed that the fossils Sts 5 and Sts 14 (see next entry) were from the same individual) From here

We did not evolve from monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor that we share with chimpanzees. Humans and chimps share a common ancestor with gorillas. Humans, chimps, and gorillas all share a common ancestor with monkeys. So there's no need to tell your children that we evolved from monkeys. That's good. :001_smile: I leave arguing about God to those of you who believe in him. However when it comes to proof it isn't the age of the earth we can't prove. That's 4.53 billion years.

carbon dating is only used for objects back to about 50,000 years. There are many other types of dating used to date objects that are much older. And they are effective enough to know the difference between 10,000 and 4 billion years.

That is your belief. That is not scientific. I cannot understand how anyone can believe in the Bible in this day and age of enlightenment. I try not to be hard or harsh with them but to understand why they need to believe this. However, I find that I am discriminated against for my lack of belief. When I state that I don't believe I am banned from boards and immediately labeled as an "unbeliever" which makes me unfit to correspond with. Are you exactly like your parents? No. You're different. Every organism that is born is different from its parents. That's called variation. It doesn't need to be proven, you can observe it. So as each generation is born the percentage of certain genes changes within it. There are more or less blue eyes. The population has evolved. Do you dispute this? Sometimes there are mutations that happen which cause an organism to be more or less fit to live within its environment. Look at arctic foxes. They're white. Foxes not in the arctic are not white. How do you think that happened? They evolved, that's how that happened. There are hundreds of thousands of examples of things you can observe that show evolution. From large examples to small. Genetic to biologic to zoologic. That's why it's taught. Because it's real and not magic. There are those who are saved who believe it as well. Also the entire Catholic church believes it too. You're showing the same intolerance you don't wish others to show you. 's'ok. Those who examine the evidence come around to accept evolution. Those who start with a preconceived answer in their minds and fear of being not saved come to find your belief preferable. The term evolutionist is actually offensive as it's not a belief.

Untrue. That's your belief. It's not correct. B is dated later than A. Direct descent is not necessary to state that B evolved from A. We don't have amino acids just *poofing* into existence, that's yet another strawman. And yes, I'll dispute anything *poofing* into existence by magic and being enough to seed an entire species. If you wish to use God as part of your argument then you need to show that this god exists. Every creature alive on earth today comes from other creatures that either are alive on earth today or were alive on earth recently. These creatures that gave birth (or otherwise) to every creature alive today came about similarly. And so it goes backward in time. If you make the assumption that all life comes from other life and discount magic, as I and all reasonable scientists do, then you have to look at fossils as a part of that chain of life. Nowhere do we find organisms that came about from nothing and never spawned other organisms. Since we've seen all variations of evolution in the lab and observed it in the wild fron adaptation to speciation there is no doubt that life evolves and that these fossils we find are part of that vast web of life. To assume otherwise would be silly. Unless you can make a case for what these fossils are other than part of the evolutionary chain then it's just common sense to place them someplace there. Can you? Creationists are not blackballed. They simply fail to meet the standards that are applied to all scientific work. We're not going to change the standards for them. We don't need to observe a creature from millions of years ago to know much about it. Do you allow that a murder victim's skeleton can tell us much about the crime? If you are insistent upon disallowing all evidence that isn't directly observed there are many prisoners you're going to have to set free. And while you speak about these supposed flaws you have yet to show any of them. The fact that one creature fits a niche well and has no need to evolve over the millennia does not mean that others will not meet up with pressures that force their evolution. If you feel you can dispute the facts, then please do dispute them and stop simply saying you can. I have yet to see a disputation of the ToE that remained within scientific boundaries.

The earth is not young, it is old. The Egyptian civilization (or the Chinese, Persian, Mayan... ) would have been under water (if the flood had occurred) and yet there is no gap in their historical records to indicate the death of everyone Egyptian. No water damage on their monuments. It's as if the flood never happened. I put this down to the fact that the flood never happened. In many cases the goal of homeschooling is to be able to teach children things that they would otherwise be unable to learn in a public school context. At its best it works to maintain cultural, historical and religious integrity. At its worst it works to propagate mis and disinformation. To say that we don't know whether fossil A actually evolved from fossil B... so? Why do we need to know that? Tell me why we need to know the exact descent and I'll start to worry about whether or not A evolved directly into B. What I do know is that both A and B are gone. Their species are no longer represented on the earth. Why is that? Where did they go? They either evolved or they all died out. But then we find fossils of other species later on that look a lot like them. Same basic feature set... is it more likely that this fossil is a descendent or that it just *poofed* into existence? If you want science to consider a creator as part of the equation you have to provide evidence that this creator exists. Bueller? Bueller? To simply say that science changes so we can disregard the conclusions... that's silly. Science refines, yes. But the basic data facts don't change. And we speak in provisional language because, unlike the absolutism of religion, we never rule out the slightest possibility. In this case, the Theory of Evolution is an umbrella that covers facts. Lots of them. The basic tenet of evolution, that the frequency of alleles within the gene pool of a population will change over time under the influence of natural selection and genetic drift simply cannot be disputed. The only way that man did not evolve from a common ancestor with other primates would be if there were not enough time for this to have happened. Hence the desire for a young earth.

I have. They aren't science. At best they're faith-based. At worst they're strawmen and falsehoods.

I guess I missed that the first time around. So you're saying since you don't understand it the only possible alternative must be magic? Sigh... the strawmen provided by the various organizations are ludicrous, purposefully. They aren't science nor are they truthful. Let me ask this. What good does it do to spend time studying something that isn't really evolution? You don't really learn anything useful. These strawmen are useless. All they're good for is to convince you that science is bad and counter to your faith. What possible good can that do anyone? Especially your kids? If you believe that God created the universe and everything in it then science is just the study of God's firsthand creation. A more intimate Word than even the Bible. How can anything learned from it be harmful or bad?