As a professor I discovered something quite remarkable re evolution. As you know, science books often portray mankind's "stages" stretching over a long period of time from a naked, hairy, bent-over, mentally-deficient Neanderthal-type which gradually stands upright more and more until he is standing erect with a 1930's-style haircut. Well, I discovered that someone accidentally reversed that sketch! That's correct! Mankind actually began as the short-haired erect man and gradually became more hairy and bent over and naked etc. until today we can observe the last "stage" at any rock concert! Since I believe in humility I have resisted revealing this astounding discovery until now. Karl Meyer-Haus
Karl Meyer-Hausof KS10:00PM November 24, 2009
Au contraire. Plenty of creatures and cells abound with all kinds of differing sensitivity and reaction to light. That's where eyes started, not with a complete set of rods and cones awaiting a lens. Evolution doesn't build with purpose made cogs to render an engine, because it's NOT designed by an intelligent planner. Comfort misses the basic concept by miles, so we can't expect him to grasp what's present and what's missing in the vast body of work we call evolutionary theory.
Of course, Biblical literalists admit no possibility of error. No chance of evidence making you look silly that way - you just wish the evidence into nonexistence.
David Dyteof NY11:15PM November 23, 2009
"Accepting the common descent of species, Gingerich is a theistic evolutionist. Therefore, he does not accept metaphysical naturalism, writing that
Most mutations are disasters, but perhaps some inspired few are not. Can mutations be inspired? Here is the ideological watershed, the division between atheistic evolution and theistic evolution, and frankly it lies beyond science to prove the matter one way or the other. Science will not collapse if some practitioners are convinced that occasionally there has been creative input in the long chain of being"
Oh yeah, he's an ASTRONOMER.
Chris of MN1:09PM November 22, 2009
"What kind of nonsense is this. I looked up Talkorigins.org to find Chris's transitional species. They readily admint there are none. See the quote below"
Here you go again, liar. Have you ever told a lie? Then your a liar!
"No transitions exist, yet the assumption is made. "
Yeah, Ray comfort would be proud of you!
Chrisof MN1:06PM November 22, 2009
Especially in regards to transitional species. A transitional species isn't a half-formed animal, as you seem to think.
Darwin himself only hinted at this, but every offspring has slight genetic changes from its parents, which are now called genetic mutations. A few individuals of a species are born with very harmful mutations, and because it is difficult to live with such harmful defects in nature, these individuals are never to reach adulthood and reproduce. This is the same as humans who are born with genetic disorders.
I don't want to get into the morality of such things, but in the animal world, Darwin's "survival of the fittest" refers to this concept that only the animals who are born without any major genetic problems are able to reproduce and pass along their genes. Obviously there are mutations that can be helpful, such as the story of the evolution of the giraffe's neck. The main theory is that, like humans, all giraffes are of course born with different traits, in this case neck length. Giraffes with slightly longer necks were able to reach higher the leaves in taller tress, and so were more likely to survive into adulthood. After long generations of this there would be noticeably more giraffes with long necks, since they were the ones better equipped to survive.
With random mutations, the longer the neck, the better off a giraffe was. This was such a slow process that there might not be any noticeable difference even after tens of thousands of years. And if the environment around a species doesn't change, then the species as a whole is not likely to have any changes even over millions of years. The whole idea of transitional species refers to the species that have enough changes to differentiate them from their ancestors of hundreds of thousands of years in the past, but hasn't changed enough to call it the same as a descendant that comes hundreds of thousands of years after it. But these transitional species are fully functional (other than those few poor individuals born with harmful genetic abnormalities). As Earth's weather has gone through periods of tremendous changes, species during these periods also go through similarly quick changes.
There are plenty of things to criticize about many specifics of the theory of evolution, but please understand the concepts. Also, when scientists who discovered Ardi said that this idea that we evolved from ancient chimplike creatures is totally and completely wrong, they are talking about the idea that we came from a creature similar to today's monkeys and chimps. They are formulating to a new idea which states that there might have been a ancestor of both humans and chimps that walked upright, but chimps ended up evolving from this ancestor by going back to walking on all fours, since that was beneficial for their jungle environments. They're not criticizing the basics of evolution here. They still believe this ancestor had some chimplike features.
John Rof NJ12:14PM November 22, 2009
BRAD:
"Im sick of evos they are all talk and no action lets do something about them before they ruin society a bit more with there poison."
Your incoherent diatribe reminded me of something I had seen before, in the Creation Science Association for Mid-America vol 25 July 2008 to be precise. And I quote:
"The arrogance displayed by the evolutionist class is totally
unwarrented. The facts warrent the violent expulsion of
all evolutionists from civilized society. I am quite serious that their danger to society is so great that, in a sane society, they would be, at a minimum, denied a vote in the administration of the society, as well as any job where they might influence immature humans, e.g., scout, or youth, leader, teacher and, obviously, professor."
Not only do you seem to share the views of Tom Willis but apparently also his spellchecker. You say you have met a lot of people, I assume only once. Most people I meet, whatever their outlook still hold democracy dear. Not your bag obviously.
KEITH:
You must let me know where I can get hold of some of these evolution inc. shares, they sound like a goer. Bizarre comparison with Microsoft BTW, surely the bible with its incalculable worldwide sales would have been more apt, especially since Christians DO actually employ spin doctors for real, have ten TV channels where I am and are strangely exempt from taxation - now that's popular.
COBBER:
You have correctly noted that life can only exist when conditions are just right, obviously. I can't help feeling that a little study of the order of chickens and eggs might help you with some of your questions.
CHRIS:
I can't believe you missed the sarcasm there
Bruce2:47PM November 21, 2009
Cobber. This is exactly your problem - your incredulity. What's more, the Big Bang theory deals with the expansion of the universe. This has little to do with the theory of the diversity of biological organisms on Earth.
<<<"I cannot fathom the minds that believe that the multiples of animals,insects,birds,fish,flowers,trees,water,blood,ice,oxygen,and sexual organs all came together with a big bang!">>>
Please do be careful when combining euphemisms in this manner.
<<<"How did the food chain happen at the same time to feed the living creation,water,food ,oxygen,climate ,all had to happen immediately for anything to survive.">>>
It is not necessary for all to be their at the same time, just to be there before life arrived.
<<<"Blood and flesh,lungs and heart, etc. All beating together at an instant.">>>
Is that what happened with you? Or did you develop over a number of months from your beginnings as a single-celled organism?
<<<"Earth at right distance to the Sun which came from the big bang along with Moon ,stars,planets and Universe of 50 billion galaxys.">>>
And in a universe with billions of galaxies and trillions of stars, I'm sure there are many planets out there which "just so happen" to be at the right distance from their stars.
<<<"Come on you evolutionists (evilutionists).Youv'e ALL BEEN BRAINWASHED FAR TOO LONG.">>>
No, that would be those who think that an all-powerful invisible magic person somehow created the entire universe with billions of galaxies and trillions of stars, and is personally interested in them, living on a tiny insignificant planet, and is also personally interested in their social life.
Please be aware, that neither biological evolution nor the Big Bang are anti-theistic - unless one prefers to place (unreasonable) limits on (their) all-powerful universe-creating God.
Nick12:43AM November 20, 2009
I cannot fathom the minds that believe that the multiples of animals,insects,birds,fish,flowers,trees,water,blood,ice,oxygen,and sexual organs all came together with a big bang! Why a Big Bsng why not a small whisper? Who was present when this big bang went off ? How did the food chain happen at the same time to feed the living creation,water,food ,oxygen,climate ,all had to happen immediately for anything to survive. Blood and flesh,lungs and heart, etc. All beating together at an instant. Earth at right distance to the Sun which came from the big bang along with Moon ,stars,planets and Universe of 50 billion galaxys . Come on you evolutionists (evilutionists).Youv'e ALL BEEN BRAINWASHED FAR TOO LONG.
Cobber7:31AM November 19, 2009
Brad
<<<"I know a lot of people and have met a lot of people and i tell you most of them admit theres nothing in darwins tree of life myth.">>>
Most likely they are not scientifically inclined then.
<<<"To say theres no god a creator is to me bordering on insanity.">>>
Evolution is not atheism. Many religious people accept evolution AND believe in God. Scientists like Ken Miller and Francis Collins are examples. Creationists however, prefer to place limits on their god for the sake of unprovable beliefs.
<<<"Theres so much design we see all around us so there is no excuse whatsoever.">>>
Then there's no excuse whatsoever for IDers not to provide us with a way to measure "design". Yet despite numerous requests, not a single person here, at the DI, or in the lab has been able to do so.
<<<"Im sick of evos they are all talk and no action lets do something about them before they ruin society a bit more with there poison.">>>
Do what about them exactly? Should they stop doing scientific research? Should they stop making successful predictions? Should they stop doing repeatable tests? Should they stop producing consistent scientific results? Should they stop doing medical research which is based on evolutionary biology? You do take medicine, yes?
<<<"Put Up Or Shut Up Evos. Show us some evidence for the tree of life.">>>
If you go back to what is currently page 6 and look for my post titled 'Darn I missed a thread and then on page 3 called 'ERV's for your average joe', that should also suffice for your average brad, keith or bill.
Keith
<<<"That Evolution is very popular is exactly tha same as Microsoft Windows being the most sold OS/ The op[erative word being "The most SOLD. Both employ high powered spin doctors.">>>
Then why is it the DI who can only come up with PR campaigns and rhetoric, and never any scientific work that backs up their baseless claims, unlike evolutionary biologists? So far the only answer I've heard is the "evil evolutionist conspiracy". I'm not sure I'd call evolution "popular", but it is what is accepted by the scientific community at large. This MAY have something to do with the fact that it WORKS.
If anyone has an alternative theory which is capable of doing the job better, I'd really like to hear it.
Bill
<<<"they have admitted there are huge gaps spanning millions of years, and then readily tell you that if you do not have fossils within 10s of thousands of years you cannot document transitional species. It then becomes a leap of imagination as to why such and such as species was the forerunner of another species. No transitions exist, yet the assumption is made.">>>
Very good at reading between the lines and dismissing inconvenient. Perhaps then you could explain how Tiktaalik was found?
.
The frustrating part about science deniers is that they come to threads which are weeks old and assume their objections haven't already been addressed...
Nick9:50PM November 18, 2009
What kind of nonsense is this. I looked up Talkorigins.org to find Chris's transitional species. They readily admint there are none. See the quote below.
Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark's Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the most rapid evolutionary bursts. In general, in order to document transitions between species, you specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on. These are rough estimates (from Gingerich, 1976, 1980) but should give an idea of the completeness required.
Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened.
they have admitted there are huge gaps spanning millions of years, and then readily tell you that if you do not have fossils within 10s of thousands of years you cannot document transitional species. It then becomes a leap of imagination as to why such and such as species was the forerunner of another species. No transitions exist, yet the assumption is made.
This is all double talk to me. Finally, they end the section with the truth, "if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened".
Reader Comments
Back to blog
Karl Meyer-Haus of KS 10:00PM November 24, 2009
David Dyte of NY 11:15PM November 23, 2009
Chris of MN 1:09PM November 22, 2009
Chris of MN 1:06PM November 22, 2009
John R of NJ 12:14PM November 22, 2009
Bruce 2:47PM November 21, 2009
Nick 12:43AM November 20, 2009
Cobber 7:31AM November 19, 2009
Nick 9:50PM November 18, 2009
Bill in CA of CA 7:05PM November 18, 2009