Jump to content

Menu

Is there a resource refuting evolution


Recommended Posts

You stated in your previous post, "Well, he basically told Copernicus to shut up and stop believing in nonsense." He did not tell Copernicus any such thing.

 

Not in those words maybe, however "abandon completely the above-mentioned opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing; " seem to convey essentially the same message.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 291
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I do not believe that experiment was designed to prove UCD, but rather to prove the main point in evolution which is survival of the fittest and adaptation to the environment.

 

UCD is, in as far as I am aware, an unproven hypothesis still. One may consider it likely, as many do, however scientific proof is an entirely different ball-game. In fact, I am unsure if it is even possible to prove such a hypothesis, but maybe someone else can clarify that aspect.

 

Exactly. Which is why I was careful to clarify the definitions first. Most creationist are speaking of UCD when they use the word evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not in those words maybe, however "abandon completely the above-mentioned opinion that the sun stands still at the center of the world and the earth moves, and henceforth not to hold, teach, or defend it in any way whatever, either orally or in writing; " seem to convey essentially the same message.

 

What you quoted was what was stated to Galileo, not to Copernicus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The fossil record offers several problems with fossil succession. New animal forms almost always appear abruptly, rather than gradually, in the fossil record without any obvious connections to the animals that came before. One would expect to see evidence of the intermediate forms between species in the fossil record. While a few fossils that suggest intermediate forms do exist, they are rare. Considering how many millions of changes that would have to occur between each evolutionary step, one would expect to find ample evidence in the fossil record, but it just isn't there. If millions of changes needed to occur to change one species into another species, where are the millions of fossils that show that? The fossil record also shows that there are problems with the sequence in which forms are suppose to have evolved. Predictions of the order in which animals should appear in the fossil record often do not match the actual appearance in the fossil record. Animals that should be older, because they would have evolved first, are found in strata above animals that should have evolved later. Intermediate forms predicted appear suddenly at the same time rather than in the sequence predicted. Different skeletons that are suppose to show transitional sequences are not found close together geologically, often found in widely separated layers representing tens of millions of years; the intervals are so huge that a possible connection cannot be made. There are also geographical holes. If one species is suppose to be the evolutionary/intermediate ancestor of the one preceding it, they should be found in relatively geographical proximity, but they often separated by thousands of miles. Size is also another problem. When looking at the sequence from mammal-like reptiles to mammals, the size of skulls vary significantly, though they are often drawn as if they are similar. These difficulties need to be resolved before Universal Common Descent can be seen as proven as undeniable fact.

 

That is a very short summary of the case against portion of one chapter of Explore Evolution. The chapter discusses a few other issues with fossil succession, goes into more detail, and includes 16 endnotes with sources should one want to explore further.

 

Actually, that's a rather dated view, and they've found many transitional fossils.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transitional_fossil

 

Most of the arguments made in Creationist literature can be refuted with something as simple as Wikipedia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading all the way thru, I am getting the feeling that we are still debating apples and oranges...

 

JDoe made the comment "UCD is, in as far as I am aware, an unproven hypothesis still. One may consider it likely, as many do, however scientific proof is an entirely different ball-game. In fact, I am unsure if it is even possible to prove such a hypothesis"

While SpyCar keeps talking about Theory of Evolution being a proven fact.

 

Since science is not capable of proving or disproving anything that cannot be tested and recreated, Origins (which falls into the realm of unwritten history) is just not a subject that science can come to a factual conclusion on anymore than you can use science to prove or disprove that a particular person existed in history. There's just no way to test and find out with certainty whether your assumptions are valid or flawed.

 

So...maybe I am wrong, but it sounds like the OP was looking for the UCD subect matter that JDoe commented on, NOT the ToE (microevolution being the only thing proven) that SpyCar has been focusing on. I don't think anyone is disputing microevolution.

 

So...that means that "no" doesn't quite work as an answer to the OP unless you also go with the same, "no", as the answer to the opposing question of "does anyone have any scientific evidence supporting evolution" (again, assuming UCD is the subject under discussion)...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What you quoted was what was stated to Galileo, not to Copernicus.

 

I stand corrected, I mixed the two up along the way. As my original post #47 on this aspect clarifies it was Galileo that Pope Paul V told to shut up:

 

 

 

That would be Pope Paul V instruction, in 1616, to Galileo to stop the nonsense of heliocentricity.

 

You introduced Copernicus in your post #66, and I mixed them up in my post #76 responding to your #66. Appreciate the correction and stand corrected.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Animals that should be older, because they would have evolved first, are found in strata above animals that should have evolved later. Intermediate forms predicted appear suddenly at the same time rather than in the sequence predicted. Different skeletons that are suppose to show transitional sequences are not found close together geologically, often found in widely separated layers representing tens of millions of years; the intervals are so huge that a possible connection cannot be made. There are also geographical holes. If one species is suppose to be the evolutionary/intermediate ancestor of the one preceding it, they should be found in relatively geographical proximity, but they often separated by thousands of miles.

This jumped at me just because we were just discussing it this week in Earth Science.

There are several types of crust deformations that lead to the above happening.

Here's a good, quick overview, with pictures: http://www.eoearth.o...ust?topic=50013

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Actually, that's a rather dated view, and they've found many transitional fossils.

 

http://en.wikipedia....sitional_fossil

 

Most of the arguments made in Creationist literature can be refuted with something as simple as Wikipedia.

 

It is only a simple one paragraph summary of part of a chapter of a 159 page book. Some of the proofs brought up in the wikipedia article are discussed in the book, but with limited space and time, I didn't include them in the paragraph. There are also 16 sources that I haven't yet read or commented on as well.

 

There is no way we will resolve the creation/intelligent design/UCD debate in this thread. Nor do I believe the debate will ever be resolved since we can only interpret archaeological finds, and each person interprets these finds differently based on their world view. I am reading because I want to have at least a rudimentary understanding of each viewpoint. As it stands now, I do not have enough faith to believe in Universal Common Descent; perhaps that will change in time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I stand corrected, I mixed the two up along the way. As my original post #47 on this aspect clarifies it was Galileo that Pope Paul V told to shut up:

 

 

 

 

You introduced Copernicus in your post #66, and I mixed them up in my post #76 responding to your #66. Appreciate the correction and stand corrected.

 

I would still say that Our Pope NEVER used the words "SHUT UP" to Galileo OR Copernicus. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderators, if you shut this down, I'd love it if it wasn't deleted. I'd like to come back to some of the linked references at the beginning of the thread.

 

 

If that happens, I have them saved if you need them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

After reading all the way thru, I am getting the feeling that we are still debating apples and oranges...

Indeed that is probably correct

 

Since science is not capable of proving or disproving anything that cannot be tested and recreated, Origins (which falls into the realm of unwritten history) is just not a subject that science can come to a factual conclusion on anymore than you can use science to prove or disprove that a particular person existed in history. There's just no way to test and find out with certainty whether your assumptions are valid or flawed.

Those are some obvious problems of scientific proof, however I do not reject the notion that some proof may be constructed, I just don't quite see how it could be done. Of course creation of life from inorganic matter would be a pretty good candidate, however it would not prove UCD per se as a historical fact.

 

So...maybe I am wrong, but it sounds like the OP was looking for the UCD subect matter that JDoe commented on, NOT the ToE (microevolution being the only thing proven) that SpyCar has been focusing on. I don't think anyone is disputing microevolution.

I wouldn't call that microevolution, in fact that is in as far as I am aware that is THE theory of evolution, UCD is just a hypothesis of evolution, or rather the origin of life.

 

So...that means that "no" doesn't quite work as an answer to the OP unless you also go with the same, "no", as the answer to the opposing question of "does anyone have any scientific evidence supporting evolution" (again, assuming UCD is the subject under discussion)...

There is significant evidence supporting the UCD hypothesis, however scientific proof is maybe too much to ask for here. On the other hand, the evidence supporting alternative explanations is mostly limited to pointing to holes in the UCD hypothesis that needs plugging. There seem not to be any alternative scientific explanation out there that I know of.

 

The gods hypothesises is by necessity non-scientific, which does not necessarily mean it is incorrect, only that Science cannot deal with it. Of course there seem to be an obvious candidate in the Stoic position where god is equated with nature (being), which would solve all conflict between god and science, unfortunately that would change the perception of god into something incompatible with most current religious beliefs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So now even the mere acknowledgement that there are multiple religions with varied deities offends the Christians? Is there anything in the entire world that doesn't offend you guys?

 

You know better than that. You know that he/she is purposely targeting *Christians* with his/her statements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

The fossil record offers several problems with fossil succession. New animal forms almost always appear abruptly, rather than gradually, in the fossil record without any obvious connections to the animals that came before. One would expect to see evidence of the intermediate forms between species in the fossil record. While a few fossils that suggest intermediate forms do exist, they are rare. Considering how many millions of changes that would have to occur between each evolutionary step, one would expect to find ample evidence in the fossil record, but it just isn't there. If millions of changes needed to occur to change one species into another species, where are the millions of fossils that show that? The fossil record also shows that there are problems with the sequence in which forms are suppose to have evolved. Predictions of the order in which animals should appear in the fossil record often do not match the actual appearance in the fossil record. Animals that should be older, because they would have evolved first, are found in strata above animals that should have evolved later. Intermediate forms predicted appear suddenly at the same time rather than in the sequence predicted. Different skeletons that are suppose to show transitional sequences are not found close together geologically, often found in widely separated layers representing tens of millions of years; the intervals are so huge that a possible connection cannot be made. There are also geographical holes. If one species is suppose to be the evolutionary/intermediate ancestor of the one preceding it, they should be found in relatively geographical proximity, but they often separated by thousands of miles. Size is also another problem. When looking at the sequence from mammal-like reptiles to mammals, the size of skulls vary significantly, though they are often drawn as if they are similar. These difficulties need to be resolved before Universal Common Descent can be seen as proven as undeniable fact.

 

That is a very short summary of the case against portion of one chapter of Explore Evolution. The chapter discusses a few other issues with fossil succession, goes into more detail, and includes 16 endnotes with sources should one want to explore further.

 

Ah, thanks.

 

:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Y'all might notice that "JDoe" has, at this point, only 45 posts. I'm thinking he/she is a troll. I'm not feeding the troll any longer.

 

I have only noticed him/her posting in Evolution threads these past few days. Newbie or troll, there's definitely an interest. LOL

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I have only noticed him/her posting in Evolution threads these past few days. Newbie or troll, there's definitely an interest. LOL

 

 

 

I have found JDoe to be respectful in this discussion. True, JDoe only has 45 posts but they include threads on evolution, math, educational goals, the Bible. Sonlight and it's coverage of slavery, logic curriculum, geography, history, minimus, multiplication tables, and foreign language.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

I have found JDoe to be respectful in this discussion. True, JDoe only has 45 posts but they include threads on evolution, math, educational goals, the Bible. Sonlight and it's coverage of slavery, logic curriculum, geography, history, minimus, multiplication tables, and foreign language.

 

 

Joanne, I didn't say he wasn't. I simply said that in the past few days, the posts I've seen of his has been in Evolution threads... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A prev poster mentioned the layers the fossils exist in...that brings up the science of sedimentology. I don't currently have access to the video we have documenting research on this subject (packed up in boxes at the moment), but I do know that sedimentologists have been able to prove thru repeatable experimentation that sediment is laid down sideways over time, NOT bottom to top (if anyone knows how to find the research I am referencing online, I'd love the link). That means that any arguments/proofs that depend on lower layers being older than higher layers are based on flawed assumptions. Wish I could provide the docs on this research...will do some hunting

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest inoubliable

I only have 89.

What's the magic number to not be considered a troll?

 

 

For some obvious reasons, I wasn't going to step in this thread. I have to say this post made me LOL, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what would be awesome? If the evolutionists on the board would just recognize that there are some threads that your input is not needed. We already know you think we're idiots. WE KNOW!!! You can leave now. Seriously.

 

Calming tea asked for very specific information. It's abundantly clear that you don't have that specific information. Despite your passionate desire for us to be enlightened, some of us still would like to gather this information. You're input into this thread is not needed.

 

If you would like to debate evolution on this board for the umpteenth time, please start your own thread.

 

It's just so uncool that these threads always get derailed.

 

I'm not an "evolutionist". I'm a Christian who accepts the Theory of Evolution. I have little time for creationism and less respect for creation "science" (had to add a little snark :D)

 

BUT, I agree with you on this. ;) We should all have the space here to ask for advice on specific matters without having our thread derailed. The OP was not looking for a debate. Posts about resources on evolution generally don't get overrun with comments from creationists so could we not calm down, retreat and leave this thread for the people prepared to answer the OP's question?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think even ken ham et al believe that micro evolution is obviously fact. Heck you can see that in the aberage height of Anglo Saxons in the past 200 years! That's obvious.

 

I'm talking about macro evolution or I guess universal common descent.

 

All the derailing aside, I've received some great ideas to get me started.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think even ken ham et al believe that micro evolution is obviously fact. Heck you can see that in the aberage height of Anglo Saxons in the past 200 years! That's obvious.

 

I'm talking about macro evolution or I guess universal common descent.

 

All the derailing aside, I've received some great ideas to get me started.

 

 

All evolution is "micro" evolution. It's only "macro" when you look at the difference over long time spans, like over millions and billions of years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think even ken ham et al believe that micro evolution is obviously fact. Heck you can see that in the aberage height of Anglo Saxons in the past 200 years! That's obvious.

 

I'm talking about macro evolution or I guess universal common descent.

 

All the derailing aside, I've received some great ideas to get me started.

 

 

My apologies if my posts have been "derailing", maybe in time I shall evolve from a troll into something nicer after a uncertain number of generations, oops posts I mean.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would still say that Our Pope NEVER used the words "SHUT UP" to Galileo OR Copernicus. ;)

 

 

Wellll...

 

I think what often gets forgotten is that Galileo was a bit a of jerk. The papacy had been mostly fine with Copernicus and Galileo had the support of the Jesuits, the only monastic order that reports directly to the Pope. But then, in a touchy time politically for the church, he went and wrote Concerning the Two Chief World System and essentially cast the Pope as the idiot that was having heliocentrism explained to him. It should also be noted that in a world where the science of the day was ruled by Aristotle the idea that the sun was the center of the universe and therefore that those heavenly bodies hung up there somehow without any supports or mechanical systems was not simply a bit of a challenge to the church but to science as well. "Silly Galileo. Is he telling us the planets hung there by magic?"

 

Maybe you can poke the Pope. Maybe you can challenge the conventions of Natural History. But you can't do both and cry foul when it comes back to bite you.

 

I can picture all the Jesuits slapping their foreheads as they read Galileo's work and realized he'd just cast their Pope as a buffoon in his book. "Aw jeez Gally, we were this close..." Anyhow, they had to withdraw support and the Pope (who rather thought he and Galileo were on good terms) couldn't be seen not to address the slight.

 

It is, as with most stories, most complicated then many people think, And if I had been the insulted Pope at the time I may just have told Galileo to shut up. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for posting this thread, OP. We are evangelical Christians and teach evolution as a basic fact of science but know there are many people who disagree with us. I think it's important to be conversant on contentious popular topics, so I've been looking for resources that would best explain the anti-evolution view.

 

Very helpful!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All evolution is "micro" evolution. It's only "macro" when you look at the difference over long time spans, like over millions and billions of years.

 

 

It will be interesting to see how many generations pass before the e-coli in the experiment mentioned becomes a fish. When that happens, it will be easier for those who question evolution to believe it to be an accurate theory of how an inorganic compound could become organic before evolving from a simple single cell organism into a human being over time. It should also give us a better picture how long the complete evolutionary process would have taken.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see how many generations pass before the e-coli in the experiment mentioned becomes a fish.

 

If one has been taught that the theory of evolution suggests e-coli bacteria may evolve into fish in a number of generations, they have been taught erroneously.

 

This is a... bizarre... expectation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If one has been taught that the theory of evolution suggests e-coli bacteria may evolve into fish in a number of generations, they have been taught erroneously.

 

This is a... bizarre... expectation.

 

 

Evolution (wikipedia):

 

Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago.

 

Based on this definition of evolution, that e-coli will eventually turn into something that isn't an e-coli. I was being facetious in saying the e-coli would turn into a fish, but I would like to see what it becomes when it is no longer an e-coli and what that organism becomes when it is no longer that organism, and so on. I would like to see one species eventually become an entirely different species, which is what would have to occur for universal common descent to be accurate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

Evolution (wikipedia):

 

Life on Earth evolved from a universal common ancestor approximately 3.8 billion years ago.

 

Based on this definition of evolution, that e-coli will eventually turn into something that isn't an e-coli. I was being facetious in saying the e-coli would turn into a fish, but I would like to see what it becomes when it is no longer an e-coli and what that organism becomes when it is no longer that organism, and so on. I would like to see one species eventually become an entirely different species, which is what would have to occur for universal common descent to be accurate.

 

Hang around for a few million years, and you will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on this definition of evolution, that e-coli will eventually turn into something that isn't an e-coli. I was being facetious in saying the e-coli would turn into a fish, but I would like to see what it becomes when it is no longer an e-coli and what that organism becomes when it is no longer that organism, and so on. I would like to see one species eventually become an entirely different species, which is what would have to occur for universal common descent to be accurate.

 

In effect, this is exactly what happened. From the conclusion of the writeup after the new species appeared:

 

E. coli cells cannot grow on citrate under oxic conditions, and that inability has long been viewed as a defining characteristic of this important, diverse, and widespread species. In a long-term experiment, we propagated 12 populations of E. coli, all founded from the same ancestral strain, in a medium containing glucose, which is the limiting resource, and abundant citrate. For more than 30,000 generations, none of them evolved the capacity to use the citrate, although billions of mutations occurred in each population, such that any typical base pair mutation would have been tested many times in each one. It is clearly very difficult for E. coli to evolve this function. In fact, the mutation rate of the ancestral strain from CitĂ¢Ë†â€™ to Cit+ is immeasurably low; even the upper bound is 3.6 Ăƒâ€” 10Ă¢Ë†â€™13 per cell generation, which is three orders of magnitude below the typical base pair mutation rate. Nevertheless, one population eventually evolved the Cit+ function, whereas all of the others remain CitĂ¢Ë†â€™ after more than 40,000 generations.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2430337/

 

 

Ofcourse, not nearly as spectacular as a fish, and the authors do not state the claim of a new species, and indeed it would probably be open to various question as to the definitions. (ie a rewrite of E.Coli definition. I'm not into taxonomy of bacteria, so maybe someone else could pitch in here?)

 

However, if we follow the usual genus and specific difference, with genus being bacteria and E.Coli specific difference being the inability to grow on citrate, then it follows that the mutation no longer is E.Coli but a new species of bacteria. Of course, we could obviously take the new strain as a species of the genus E.Coli. just as well as to claim a new species. In any case the labels we stick on stuff seems irrelevant to the question of the confirmation of the theory of evolution, which HAS been confirmed by this experiment!

 

The disappointment of that they didn't evolve into another genus, should not distract from the rather obvious conclusion that this confirms the prediction from theory of evolution that maintains that living things will tend to evolve in a direction towards better ability to take advantage of the environment, in this case to take advantage of the presence of citrate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

See, I see Galileo as a hero who finally, in his own way, stood up to the buffoons of his time. I'm not too happy that his illegitimate son was "legitamized" by the Pope, yet his daughter was sent to a nunnery, but overall I think he was one brilliant dude.

 

And while this is really off topic, I'll add that we recently got the chance to listen to Dava Sobel, author of Galileo's Daughter and A More Perfect Heaven(about Copernicus). She had a great bit about visiting the Creation Museum, basically ending with the thought that scared and worried her the most about it was the number of school busses in the parking lot. We absolutely loved it, and apparently the entire audience Felton the same.

 

I don't doubt his brilliance (he's a favourite of mine as well) and I don't mean to completely counter the usual view because it has truth as well. I just mean to say...it's complicated. Generally these stories are more then what we've reduced them to in modeen times.

 

ETA: I'm jealous. Dava Sobel's Longitude is one of my favourite science/history reads.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In effect, this is exactly what happened. From the conclusion of the writeup after the new species appeared:

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2430337/

 

 

Ofcourse, not nearly as spectacular as a fish, and the authors do not state the claim of a new species, and indeed it would probably be open to various question as to the definitions. (ie a rewrite of E.Coli definition. I'm not into taxonomy of bacteria, so maybe someone else could pitch in here?)

 

However, if we follow the usual genus and specific difference, with genus being bacteria and E.Coli specific difference being the inability to grow on citrate, then it follows that the mutation no longer is E.Coli but a new species of bacteria. Of course, we could obviously take the new strain as a species of the genus E.Coli. just as well as to claim a new species. In any case the labels we stick on stuff seems irrelevant to the question of the confirmation of the theory of evolution, which HAS been confirmed by this experiment!

 

The disappointment of that they didn't evolve into another genus, should not distract from the rather obvious conclusion that this confirms the prediction from theory of evolution that maintains that living things will tend to evolve in a direction towards better ability to take advantage of the environment, in this case to take advantage of the presence of citrate.

 

Granted under our current definition of "species," they may have evolved into a different species. This still fits into the first definition I stated in my first post on this thread, the one that I refer to as micro evolution for easier reference. How long will it take for them to become something other than a bacteria, something more complex, perhaps with eyes, ears, arms/wings, etc?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Granted under our current definition of "species," they may have evolved into a different species. This still fits into the first definition I stated in my first post on this thread, the one that I refer to as micro evolution for easier reference. How long will it take for them to become something other than a bacteria, something more complex, perhaps with eyes, ears, arms/wings, etc?

 

Of the 3.6 billion year history of life on earth, the first 2.6 billion years were dominated exclusively by single celled organisms. It took that much time for the first multi-cellular organisms to make an appearance.

 

Even dogs diverged from wolves about 30-40000 years ago.

 

To expect e-coli to sprout wings then, as a proof of evolutionary theory, is either misunderstanding the theory or misrepresenting it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To the OP, I don't think this is exactly what you're looking for, but it's a GREAT article/paper that addresses many of the pastoral concerns involved in the creation vs evolution debate, by Pastor Tim Keller of Redeemer Church in Manhattan. Dr. Keller accepts both creationism and evolutionary theory, and with humility and grace, he reconciles many of the issues brilliantly, in my opinion.

 

http://biologos.org/uploads/projects/Keller_white_paper.pdf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long will it take for them to become something other than a bacteria, something more complex, perhaps with eyes, ears, arms/wings, etc?

 

I suspect the answer here would be never, as I cannot quite see how growing eyes, or any of the other things mentioned, will make them better adapted to the environment in which they live (a petri dish)?

 

In any case the theory do not provide a timeframe for change to happen, and as such would not be able to answer any "how long" questions, the only question it is fit to answer is "what direction" questions, and the concrete answers to that does depend on understanding how the environment provide opportunity (in this case citrate, but in most cases way to complex to identify beforehand) which is open for exploitation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How long will it take for them to become something other than a bacteria, something more complex, perhaps with eyes, ears, arms/wings, etc?

 

Well, it probably never will, as long as it remains in its current environment. Evolution is not about how extremely and how fast an organism can change. It's merely change over time and adaptation to the environment. How would it benefit E. coli to develop eyes, ears, arms, or wings? How would it benefit me to adapt gills to survive in my entirely landbound environment? You are asking for something that the theories of evolution, adaptation, and speciation don't actually propose as proof of those theories.

 

It should also give us a better picture how long the complete evolutionary process would have taken.

 

There is no such thing as the "complete evolutionary process," because there is no defined end-stage goal. It's just change over time and adaptation.

 

Tara

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oddly the guy I was talking to just this afternoon, whose Phd is in Biology, told me that from what he has read, it's not accepted 'fact' across the board and there is as much evidence for creation as evolution. Now evolution within a species is well documented. Dogs evolve, but they are still dogs.

 

That's not a statement of what I personally believe, I just think it's wise to see the controversy from more than one side.

 

 

 

Exactly! You have to ask, what do you mean by Evolution? As a Christian, I accept and am perfectly comfortable with micro-evolution. It's macro-evolution that I totally don't believe in. Furthermore, there is NO scientific evidence to support macro-evolution. We have never observed, replicated or found a fossil to support one species "evolving" into a completely new, different species: ape to man.

 

This is why I like this site: http://www.godandscience.org/ Lots of good science supporting the Bible and God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All evolution is "micro" evolution. It's only "macro" when you look at the difference over long time spans, like over millions and billions of years.

 

This is, perhaps, one of the things that makes me cringe the most about creation "science," the attempt to distinguish between "micro" and "macro" evolution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the thread and I'm only wading in to ask: wasn't the whole "ape to man" thing completely debunked a long time ago? Wasn't there something that said "science never said we went from ape to man, only that we shared a common ancestor?"

 

I could be wrong, but I thought I heard this somewhere long ago that thoroughly debunked the belief that evolution espouses an "ape to man" expectation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've read the thread and I'm only wading in to ask: wasn't the whole "ape to man" thing completely debunked a long time ago? Wasn't there something that said "science never said we went from ape to man, only that we shared a common ancestor?"

 

I could be wrong, but I thought I heard this somewhere long ago that thoroughly debunked the belief that evolution espouses an "ape to man" expectation.

 

I've been doing a lot of (science-based) reading about the Pleistocene era, and that is what the research was pointing to when those books were published.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I've been doing a lot of (science-based) reading about the Pleistocene era, and that is what the research was pointing to when those books were published.

 

Right. Books in the past. What I'm getting at is why do we still have a prevailing belief in this "ape to man" thing, when the past research was disproved or debunked a while ago?

 

That's what I'm asking. Do people still believe this because of old or outdated research or is the research still espousing this (because I had thought the past belief had since been debunked)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Right. Books in the past. What I'm getting at is why do we still have a prevailing belief in this "ape to man" thing, when the past research was disproved or debunked a while ago?

 

That's what I'm asking. Do people still believe this because of old or outdated research or is the research still espousing this (because I had thought the past belief had since been debunked)?

 

 

It's probably because it's a good sound bite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Right. Books in the past. What I'm getting at is why do we still have a prevailing belief in this "ape to man" thing, when the past research was disproved or debunked a while ago?

 

That's what I'm asking. Do people still believe this because of old or outdated research or is the research still espousing this (because I had thought the past belief had since been debunked)?

 

Humans are apes. Great apes, to be exact. That is part of our classification. Common ancestry has been a component of the theory of evolution for a couple centuries. Charles Darwin, and a split second later, Russel Wallace, compiled enough evidence to explain the mechanism of evolution, and called it natural selection. The idea that one creature evolves into another creature is best left to fantasy games llike pokemon.

 

evolution-pikachu-168920.gif

Not representative of real evolution

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Humans are apes. Great apes, to be exact. That is part of our classification. Common ancestry has been a component of the theory of evolution for a couple centuries. Charles Darwin, and a split second later, Russel Wallace, compiled enough evidence to explain the mechanism of evolution, and called it natural selection. The idea that one creature evolves into another creature is best left to fantasy games llike pokemon.

 

evolution-pikachu-168920.gif

Not representative of real evolution

 

 

I do not disagree. I was questioning the poster above who stated that she was looking for the proof in evolution via the ape to man theory. As though that was the only way evolution would make any sense or be true. Post #144. She was stating that there was no evidence of macro evolution and used the ape to man "belief" as proof of this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not disagree. I was questioning the poster above who stated that she was looking for the proof in evolution via the ape to man theory. As though that was the only way evolution would make any sense or be true. Post #144. She was stating that there was no evidence of macro evolution and used the ape to man "belief" as proof of this.

 

 

.

 

oh nevermind, I misread.

 

Carry on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


Ă—
Ă—
  • Create New...