??Missing Link of Evolution??

[Lawson_Raider]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520632,00.html

OVERISIZED PIC REMOVED BY Goose

Scientists are ecstatic that they believed they have proved God wrong and themselves right because they dug up a dead monkey in Germany!

Supposedly, this carcass is 45 million or so years old so in all the hubbub and circle-dancing they are doing, in this story, they never told us what exactly made this fossil the supposedly "missing link". They said it was a cross between a monkey and a lemur and that was it, all the evidence they needed.

Of course, they are using a flawed scientific theory to try and prove a flawed scientific theory which still amounts to a flawed scientific theory.

Here is what I think.

The Bible explains all we need to know about how life became on this Earth. Evolution in Darwin's definition is nothing more than man's attempt to write God off to remove his accountability for his own sins. If there is no God, then we can live how the heck we want to because after all, we are just animals. It is easy to see how the liberal movement started with this flawed theory.

I see this and other things around presently in the world as proof that we are living in the end times; the last days. Like Pastor John Hagee said, "If you reject God who is the truth, the only thing left for you to believe is a lie".

Of course, this story that came out today is not going to change the belief in God by the faithful believer; they will see it is just another hogwash story. However, for those who actively reject God and those who don't have a strong foundation in faith, this will only further their own deception.

[Vaard]

yeah, all those dinosaur fossils and the fact that the father we dig down, the simpler life forms get is all one big athiest conspiracy.......


i actually had a jehovah witness tell me that atheists actually planted all the fossils in the earth just to discredit god.......

[nebcon]

I thought Al Gore was the missing link.

[Residential Bob]

What scientists say that it proves God wrong?

[Buffalo]

OK. How about those who believe in God and accept the modern theory of evolution?

[highroller]

The article never mention anything about a 'missing link'. You got interested for nothing.

[Dem]

Evolution doesn't disprove god. A literal interpretation of the Bible yes, but it doesn't disprove god.

Also the term, "missing link" is meaningless.

Here is a better article on the subject: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8057465.stm

Pretty cool discovery regardless of your beliefs.

[toreyj01]

[The advantage of Catholics] lies in the simple fact that they do not have to decide either for Evolution or against it. Authority has not spoken on the subject; hence it puts no burden upon conscience, and may be discussed realistically and without prejudice. A certain wariness, of course, is necessary. I say that authority has not spoken; it may, however, speak tomorrow, and so the prudent man remembers his step. But in the meanwhile there is nothing to prevent him examining all available facts, and even offering arguments in support of them or against them—so long as those arguments are not presented as dogma. (STJ, 163)

H. L. Mencken

[Jagergeist]

The reason I can't get into the whole god thing is due to the huge amount of scientific fields you have to minimize or distort to pound a spot for faith in there. Biology, paleontology, astronomy, physics and geology all have to be wrong in one form or other to make the Bible absolute fact when it states the earth is 6,000-ish years old.

[Dem]

i actually had a jehovah witness tell me that atheists actually planted all the fossils in the earth just to discredit god.......
I was once told that all those fossils were planted by God to test our faith. :))

[ChaosControl]

yeah, all those dinosaur fossils and the fact that the father we dig down, the simpler life forms get is all one big athiest conspiracy.......


i actually had a jehovah witness tell me that atheists actually planted all the fossils in the earth just to discredit god.......

:lol: The sad thing is I've heard somewhat similar views. I've heard people said "the devil planted them so we wouldn't believe in God."

[Vaard]

[The advantage of Catholics] lies in the simple fact that they do not have to decide either for Evolution or against it. Authority has not spoken on the subject; hence it puts no burden upon conscience, and may be discussed realistically and without prejudice. A certain wariness, of course, is necessary. I say that authority has not spoken; it may, however, speak tomorrow, and so the prudent man remembers his step. But in the meanwhile there is nothing to prevent him examining all available facts, and even offering arguments in support of them or against them—so long as those arguments are not presented as dogma. (STJ, 163)

H. L. Mencken



yeah, tell that to conpernecus and gallileo........


bruno would be very interested to hear it as well........ although you will have to yell over the flames.......

[ChaosControl]

For people who believe in a god and evolution, do you believe people will further evolve? If we're "made in his image" or whatever, wouldn't that be multiple images if people continue to evolve. And at what point are people people and no longer lower lifeforms?

[Joeybear23]

The reason I can't get into the whole god thing is due to the huge amount of scientific fields you have to minimize or distort to pound a spot for faith in there. Biology, paleontology, astronomy, physics and geology all have to be wrong in one form or other to make the Bible absolute fact when it states the earth is 6,000-ish years old.

The prophesies, revelations, and accounts contained in the Bible do not state the earth is 6,000 years old.
Much of what is is attributed to "the Bible" is really just someone's interpretation.

I am not sold on the theory of evolution, but I am also not dogmatically opposed to it. Certainly an omnipotent God could utilize evolution as a tool of creation.

[beaux]

The reason I can't get into the whole god thing is due to the huge amount of scientific fields you have to minimize or distort to pound a spot for faith in there. Biology, paleontology, astronomy, physics and geology all have to be wrong in one form or other to make the Bible absolute fact when it states the earth is 6,000-ish years old.

The Bible does not date the earth.

When Adam and Eve were created, they were sinless and immortal. The Bible does not define how long it was from their creation until Eve committed the first sin. The counting began only after Eve sinned.

[Joeybear23]

For people who believe in a god and evolution, do you believe people will further evolve? If we're "made in his image" or whatever, wouldn't that be multiple images if people continue to evolve. And at what point are people people and no longer lower lifeforms?

Is it not possible that God made man in His image through a long process rather than *snap-bang* ?

[Residential Bob]

For people who believe in a god and evolution, do you believe people will further evolve? If we're "made in his image" or whatever, wouldn't that be multiple images if people continue to evolve. And at what point are people people and no longer lower lifeforms?People continue to evolve. As does life in general. Why would evolution stop now?

No, that would not be multiple images. Evolution does not address the creation made in the Creator's image.

[Clamp]

I am not sold on the theory of evolution, but I am also not dogmatically opposed to it. Certainly an omnipotent God could utilize evolution as a tool of creation.

This is what I've never understood about the "anti-evolution" religious folks. I myself am not religious, but I don't know why evolution can't fit into a religious mindset.

As you said, an omnipotent God would have this tool in his chest... :)

[ChaosControl]

Is it not possible that God made man in His image through a long process rather than *snap-bang* ?

Sure, but what about all the people in between, are they not in his image? What about people now? If we continue to evolve, how are we in his image?

I mean I can see how some believe in a god and evolution, just depends on which god.

[ChaosControl]

People continue to evolve. As does life in general. Why would evolution stop now?

No, that would not be multiple images. Evolution does not address the creation made in the Creator's image.

I'm more wondering the religious side, not the scientific side. I don't believe in a god, I'm just curious how one can reconcile being made in the image of a god through a process of evolution. It seems to me then that earlier lifeforms were lesser lifeforms since they weren't as much "god-like" in form.

[Buffalo]

Sure, but what about all the people in between, are they not in his image? What about people now? If we continue to evolve, how are we in his image?

I mean I can see how some believe in a god and evolution, just depends on which god.
I don't believe that Genesis is literal. And I believe we are still evolving.

[Jagergeist]

The Bible does not date the earth.

When Adam and Eve were created, they were sinless and immortal. The Bible does not define how long it was from their creation until Eve committed the first sin. The counting began only after Eve sinned.

Good point and I may heve been recouting a talking point. I have heard the phrase "6,000 years old" several times relating to Biblical literalists but I guess I'm not sure if that is an accurate characterization or not.

[Joeybear23]

Sure, but what about all the people in between, are they not in his image? What about people now? If we continue to evolve, how are we in his image?

I mean I can see how some believe in a god and evolution, just depends on which god.

Man has not evolved in recorded history.

[beaux]

I'm more wondering the religious side, not the scientific side. I don't believe in a god, I'm just curious how one can reconcile being made in the image of a god through a process of evolution. It seems to me then that earlier lifeforms were lesser lifeforms since they weren't as much "god-like" in form.

I do believe in God so it is easy.

God knew, at the beginning, that the planet would slowly go through changes. So, God built in some ability to change. If one believes in God, it's not a stretch to believe that God knew what would be coming and would be able to account for it.

[Residential Bob]

I'm more wondering the religious side, not the scientific side. I don't believe in a god, I'm just curious how one can reconcile being made in the image of a god through a process of evolution. It seems to me then that earlier lifeforms were lesser lifeforms since they weren't as much "god-like" in form.The universe is dynamic. Anything physical and four-dimensional evolves, including life. God, however, is not limited to the physical and four-dimensional. Neither is his creation.

[P is for Pterodactyl]

:lol: The sad thing is I've heard somewhat similar views. I've heard people said "the devil planted them so we wouldn't believe in God."

What if God planted the Bible to test our faith in evolution...

[ChaosControl]

What if God planted the Bible to test our faith in evolution...

Or... "the powers that be" planted it to keep us in line...
Kind of like government is used to do.

Religion and government really aren't all that much different...


So then "in his image" doesn't mean the body, but maybe the spirit or "soul"? So multiple stages of evolution may all have this same spirit, despite different levels of physical and mental evolution?

[beaux]

Good point and I may heve been recouting a talking point. I have heard the phrase "6,000 years old" several times relating to Biblical literalists but I guess I'm not sure if that is an accurate characterization or not.

It is common to see estimates between 6-12,000 years, but you can't make that argument based on The Bible because of what I posted in my last post.

From creation to first sin might have been 2 days but Biblically speaking it could have just as easily been 200 billion years

[ChaosControl]

It is common to see estimates between 6-12,000 years, but you can't make that argument based on The Bible because of what I posted in my last post.

From creation to first sin might have been 2 days but Biblically speaking it could have just as easily been 200 billion years

So then the age recorded for Adam would be his age post fall?

[Metal Conservative]

yeah, all those dinosaur fossils and the fact that the father we dig down, the simpler life forms get is all one big athiest conspiracy.......


i actually had a jehovah witness tell me that atheists actually planted all the fossils in the earth just to discredit god.......

I believe all other species before man are all just gods mulligan's.

GOD-"Oh crap that design is flawed, well back to the drawing board"

"Huh, I thought for sure I had it right that time"

"Ok those didn't with stand the ice age so well."

"I need to give them the ability to learn and use the knowledge they acquire."

"Oh I give up! They walk hunched over and drag their knuckles. They'll straighten up over time and learn to shave" :whistle:

[7ranz]

The Bible does not date the earth.

When Adam and Eve were created, they were sinless and immortal. The Bible does not define how long it was from their creation until Eve committed the first sin. The counting began only after Eve sinned.

And it's a story. A rather clever one at that. However, our obsession with truth being told through non-fiction has caused us to reject the truths of fiction. There's a reason people 'find' themselves in Hamlet and it's not because what Shakespeare describes is the literal events that occurred.

[Metal Conservative]

And it's a story. A rather clever one at that. However, our obsession with truth being told through non-fiction has caused us to reject the truths of fiction. There's a reason people 'find' themselves in Hamlet and it's not because what Shakespeare describes is the literal events that occurred.

Bingo!

[asda1]

The reason I can't get into the whole god thing is due to the huge amount of scientific fields you have to minimize or distort to pound a spot for faith in there. Biology, paleontology, astronomy, physics and geology all have to be wrong in one form or other to make the Bible absolute fact when it states the earth is 6,000-ish years old.

So the bible's literal time line has to be correct for there to be a god and Christianity not to be invalidated?

I think many would disagree with that.

[LouC]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,520632,00.html

<Over Size Limit Image Snipped>

Scientists are ecstatic that they believed they have proved God wrong and themselves right because they dug up a dead monkey in Germany!

God was never mentioned in the article and was never mentioned as being proven wrong.

Supposedly, this carcass is 45 million or so years old so in all the hubbub and circle-dancing they are doing, in this story, they never told us what exactly made this fossil the supposedly "missing link".

That would be because they never called it "the missing link".

Further the Fox News article was but an excerpt of a larger article from The Wall Street Journal, indicated at the bottom of the Fox News excerpt, which is why the Fox News excerpt is shy of pertinent data.

They said it was a cross between a monkey and a lemur and that was it, all the evidence they needed.

No they did not say that.

Of course, they are using a flawed scientific theory to try and prove a flawed scientific theory which still amounts to a flawed scientific theory.

They acknowledge there is still plenty to learn.

Here is what I think.

Oh goody, enlightenment.

The Bible explains all we need to know about how life became on this Earth. Evolution in Darwin's definition is nothing more than man's attempt to write God off to remove his accountability for his own sins. If there is no God, then we can live how the heck we want to because after all, we are just animals. It is easy to see how the liberal movement started with this flawed theory.

I am no Liberal but I do not believe in a literal simplified version of Biblical explanations on the origin of life.

I see this and other things around presently in the world as proof that we are living in the end times; the last days. Like Pastor John Hagee said, "If you reject God who is the truth, the only thing left for you to believe is a lie".

Of course we live in the end times, our lives are measured at the moment of our conception.

Millions of people every day meet their end times.

The "End Times" predictions are constantly getting moved forward and have been since man created a flawed "End Time" theory.

Of course, this story that came out today is not going to change the belief in God by the faithful believer; they will see it is just another hogwash story.

Especially not change the belief for those with reading comprehension issues.

That makes me wonder how such people can have faith in the full text of the Bible if it is so obvious they can not comprehend the text of a simple Fox News excerpt of a larger WSJ article?

However, for those who actively reject God and those who don't have a strong foundation in faith, this will only further their own deception.

Talk about furthering their own deception. :))

[toreyj01]

yeah, tell that to conpernecus and gallileo........


bruno would be very interested to hear it as well........ although you will have to yell over the flames.......

Well to be quite fair that was hundreds of years earlier, or where the Fundamentalist Christians are now...

Here are the two latest Popes on evolution..

"I find it important to underline that the theory of evolution implies questions that must be assigned to philosophy and which themselves lead beyond the realms of science," the pope was quoted as saying in the book, which records a meeting with fellow theologians the pope has known for years.

In the book, Benedict reflected on a 1996 comment of his predecessor, John Paul II, who said that Charles Darwin's theories on evolution were sound, as long as they took into account that creation was the work of God, and that Darwin's theory of evolution was "more than a hypothesis."

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

Better late than never, at least Catholics don't believe that prehistoric man rode Dinosaurs like horses.

http://www.evangelicalright.com/dinosaur%20with%20saddle.jpg

This little feller has a saddle!

[Jagergeist]

I believe all other species before man are all just gods mulligan's.

GOD-"Oh crap that design is flawed, well back to the drawing board"

"Huh, I thought for sure I had it right that time"

"Ok those didn't with stand the ice age so well."

"I need to give them the ability to learn and use the knowledge they acquire."

"Oh I give up! They walk hunched over and drag their knuckles. They'll straighten up over time and learn to shave" :whistle:

:))

I watched a show on Discovery about all the fossilized ancient designs of sea creatures that started and fizzled out over time. It was amazing to see all the variations that (God/evolution) worked on before we arrived at life as we know it today.

[harumph]

Man has not evolved in recorded history.

I dunno. I'm pretty sure there are people in our own society who have evolved into slovenly, irresponsible mooches.

But, I digress.

We have gotten taller.

[Jagergeist]

Well to be quite fair that was hundreds of years earlier, or where the Fundamentalist Christians are now...

Here are the two latest Popes on evolution..

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/2007-04-12-pope-evolution_N.htm

Better late than never, at least Catholics don't believe that prehistoric man rode Dinosaurs like horses.

http://www.evangelicalright.com/dinosaur%20with%20saddle.jpg

This little feller has a saddle!

I heard about that museum. I'm all for free speech but that is just plain crazy. I feel sorry for kids that think they actually learned anything scientific after going.

[Joeybear23]

I dunno. I'm pretty sure there are people in our own society who have evolved into slovenly, irresponsible mooches.

But, I digress.

We have gotten taller.

Height and longevity are not the results of evolution, rather better nutrition and modern medicine.

[CrusaderFrank]

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle for asking but how come that fossil didn't become fossil fuel?

[Dem]

Well, I'll be a monkey's uncle for asking but how come that fossil didn't become fossil fuel?
From your fossil fuels thread: http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=54628051&postcount=10

[tjvh]

OVERISIZED PIC REMOVED BY Goose



Athiest Scientific Diagnosis that specimen is ground level "human":
Part one: Toned arms, evidence of diet consisting of expensive Pizza from distant lands, and $100 dollar (adjusted for inflation) Steaks.
Part two: Tail beginning to separate from body due to speculation that specimen's belief in "hope, and change" equated to a "Worm eating it's own Tail".

[CrusaderFrank]

From your fossil fuels thread: http://forums.hannity.com/showpost.php?p=54628051&postcount=10

I can read ya know.

So Saturn's Moon Titan had seabeds? Is that where the lakes of hydrocarbons come from or is it only poor little Earth that needs to pressure cook velicoraptors over geological time to make hydrocarbons?

[StellarRae]

I don't believe in a god, I'm just curious how one can reconcile being made in the image of a god through a process of evolution.

Best proof against evolution I've ever seen:

Evolution = Change

Man was made in the image of God.

God never Changes.

Evolution disproved!

[CrusaderFrank]

OVERISIZED PIC REMOVED BY Goose



Athiest Scientific Diagnosis that specimen is ground level "human":
Part one: Toned arms, evidence of diet consisting of expensive Pizza from distant lands, and $100 dollar (adjusted for inflation) Steaks.
Part two: Tail beginning to separate from body due to speculation that specimen's belief in "hope, and change" equated to a "Worm eating it's own Tail".

OMG! That looks just like the ancestors of the I'm a Mac and I'm a PC guys!

[beaux]

So then the age recorded for Adam would be his age post fall?

Yup... nobody was counting before then.

[LouC]

I can read ya know.

So Saturn's Moon Titan had seabeds? Is that where the lakes of hydrocarbons come from or is it only poor little Earth that needs to pressure cook velicoraptors over geological time to make hydrocarbons?

I am curious exactly what point do you hope to make with your "pressure cooked velociraptor" spiel?

[beaux]

And it's a story. A rather clever one at that. However, our obsession with truth being told through non-fiction has caused us to reject the truths of fiction. There's a reason people 'find' themselves in Hamlet and it's not because what Shakespeare describes is the literal events that occurred.

That's your opinion.

[7ranz]

That's your opinion.

Clearly. I'm the one who said it.

[CrusaderFrank]

I am curious exactly what point do you hope to make with your "pressure cooked velociraptor" spiel?

Just want people to spend maybe 30 seconds thinking about why so many other planets and even moons in our Solar System can positively REEK of hydrocarbons without pressure cooking velicoraptors over geological time.

[beaux]

Just want people to spend maybe 30 seconds thinking about why so many other planets and even moons in our Solar System can positively REEK of hydrocarbons without pressure cooking velicoraptors over geological time.

ummmm...... Illegal aliens driving SUVs?

:))

[CrusaderFrank]

OVERISIZED PIC REMOVED BY Goose


Guy on the Right: hello, I'm a Mac

Guy on the Left: And I'm a PC

Mac: I have a prehensile tail

PC: And if you buy the duct tape upgrade, my tail is also prehensile

[Dem]

I can read ya know.

So Saturn's Moon Titan had seabeds? Is that where the lakes of hydrocarbons come from or is it only poor little Earth that needs to pressure cook velicoraptors over geological time to make hydrocarbons?
There are different types of hydrocarbons all of which are formed in different ways.

[LouC]

Just want people to spend maybe 30 seconds thinking about why so many other planets and even moons in our Solar System can positively REEK of hydrocarbons without pressure cooking velicoraptors over geological time.

Because they are produced differently there.

[ISYairio]

What a mean thing to do, you evil scientists! "Finding" all these "fossils"!!!! :snooty:

:rolleyes:

[CrusaderFrank]

There are different types of hydrocarbons all of which are formed in different ways.

Yes, so I've heard.

CH4 on Earth is a "Fossil Fuel" while even out on Pluto is just something that occurs naturally on the planet, er I mean trans-Neptunian Object. Go figure.

[ThrowCop]

OK. How about those who believe in God and accept the modern theory of evolution?That's the reason I hate these dumb threads. They give smart Christians a bad name.

[CrusaderFrank]

Because they are produced differently there.

Right, which is why the Russians were the only people to ever made hydrocarbons not with Organic materials, but with rust, marble and water.

No sale.

[Finality]

That's the reason I hate these dumb threads. They give smart Christians a bad name.
I think most of skeptics of young-earth theory understand the difference between Christians who fear the scientific method and Christians who don't. :)

Threads like these don't give smart Christians a bad name; they just help identify the dividing line. :))

[Dem]

Yes, so I've heard.

CH4 on Earth is a "Fossil Fuel" while even out on Pluto is just something that occurs naturally on the planet, er I mean trans-Neptunian Object. Go figure.
So you don't believe that there are many different hydrocarbons, all of which are formed in different ways?

Are the hydrocarbons found on Titan and Pluto the same as the ones found on Earth?

[ThrowCop]

I think most of skeptics of young-earth theory understand the difference between Christians who fear the scientific method and Christians who don't. :)

Threads like these don't give smart Christians a bad name; they just help identify the dividing line. :))I can agree with that.

And it works in the other direction as well - generalizing is always a bad idea.

[enki]

hmmm... i wasn't aware that there were adults in this world who didn't know that the atmosphere and geological elements on other planets in our solar system were completely different than those on earth.

[ksdb]

I can agree with that.

And it works in the other direction as well - generalizing is always a bad idea.

Good one. :))

[nebcon]

OVERISIZED PIC REMOVED BY Goose


Guy on the Right: hello, I'm a Mac

Guy on the Left: And I'm a PC

Mac: I have a prehensile tail

PC: And if you buy the duct tape upgrade, my tail is also prehensile

:))

[nebcon]

Yes, so I've heard.

CH4 on Earth is a "Fossil Fuel" while even out on Pluto is just something that occurs naturally on the planet, er I mean trans-Neptunian Object. Go figure.

Uranus jokes in 4 3 2 1....

[Trip]

Best proof against evolution I've ever seen:

Evolution = Change

Man was made in the image of God.

God never Changes.

Evolution disproved!

So with a "logical" construct outside of time and space and having no environmental affects upon it, by your own definition of God, you are arguing that Evolution is disproved?

I wish American schools were better...

[Dadda]

yeah, all those dinosaur fossils and the fact that the father we dig down, the simpler life forms get ...

How do you know that is true?

[Joeybear23]

Yes, so I've heard.

CH4 on Earth is a "Fossil Fuel" while even out on Pluto is just something that occurs naturally on the planet, er I mean trans-Neptunian Object. Go figure.

Hydrocarbons do not account for the toxic fumes around Uranus.

[Joeybear23]

Uranus jokes in 4 3 2 1....

mission accomplished

[avergbear]

Those that believe in Creationism, or intelligent design, are not at odds with science, as the two ultimately prove each other.

You can’t help but be amused at men that have never left the womb of Earth, yet claim they have all the answers of the Universe and Life.

[LouC]

So you don't believe that there are many different hydrocarbons, all of which are formed in different ways?

Are the hydrocarbons found on Titan and Pluto the same as the ones found on Earth?

Waste of time to argue with a brick, at the end of the conversation you will be frustrated, tired, annoyed but the brick will still be as thick and uninformed as it was at the start because that is all a brick can be.

Some people choose to emulate bricks.

[brcon]

The Bible does not date the earth.

When Adam and Eve were created, they were sinless and immortal. The Bible does not define how long it was from their creation until Eve committed the first sin. The counting began only after Eve sinned.

I believe the 6,000 - 10,000 year figure is based upon some "holy men" going through the bible and adding up all the "begats". You know, Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel, and do on. Assuming anywhere from 15 to 30 years as being child bearing age back then, they added all this up and came up with 6,000 - 10,000 years.

[Marleysdaddy]

Man has not evolved in recorded history.

That sentence is false.

Marley's genome is not identical to mine or her mother's...that is evolution (change in allele frequency in a population over time).

[SnowSquirrel]

Man has not evolved in recorded history.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/11/science/11evolve.html
Here's a recent article from the New York Times. ("Cookies" required.)
"A surprisingly recent instance of human evolution has been detected among the peoples of East Africa. It is the ability to digest milk in adulthood, conferred by genetic changes that occurred as recently as 3,000 years ago, a team of geneticists has found... The finding is a striking example of a cultural practice — the raising of dairy cattle — feeding back into the human genome."

The thread-starting article's phrasing about a "missing link" is nonsense. Ask a real biologist whether they've been waiting for one really good hominid fossil to fill in a big, inexplicable gap in the historical record. In my understanding as an informed layman, there are "gaps" in any fossil record just from the fact that not every animal in history was considerate enough to blunder into a tarpit where we could find it. We have a pretty good idea of our own species' origins through numerous hominid fossils such as H. erectus, H. habilis, H. neanderthalensis, and possibly the recent "hobbit" H. florensis. Not all of these actually were our ancestors, but it's pretty clear that many thousand years ago there was a different and wider array of human-like creatures on Earth, most of whom died. The farther back you look, the more similar the fossils get to something that could be a shared ancestor with modern chimps and gorillas. DNA studies also show similarity between our species, even in areas that can't be explained from the fact that our bodies are similar. Behavioral studies also show that we have a lot in common mentally and socially, even outside professional athletes. So the record is about as solid as one could reasonably expect from having to dig ancient, broken bones out of the dirt and figure out what they were.

[Marleysdaddy]

Originally Posted by Joeybear23
Man has not evolved in recorded history.


We have gotten taller.

I think as Caesarean births have become safer and more common, average cranial diameter has also increased
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119137737/abstract

[beaux]

I believe the 6,000 - 10,000 year figure is based upon some "holy men" going through the bible and adding up all the "begats". You know, Adam and Eve begat Cain and Abel, and do on. Assuming anywhere from 15 to 30 years as being child bearing age back then, they added all this up and came up with 6,000 - 10,000 years.

Maybe so, but that does not date the earth.

[Joeybear23]

That sentence is false.

Marley's genome is not identical to mine or her mother's...that is evolution (change in allele frequency in a population over time).

Clearly you do not understand the idea of evolution and how it differs from genotypical and phenotypical differentiation.

[Joeybear23]

I think as Caesarean births have become safer and more common, average cranial diameter has also increased
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119137737/abstract

As I said earlier, better development due to the availability of better nutrition and medical advances do not equate to human evolution.

[David_SE]

Well the date of earth in the bible is nothing just made of from thin air. Just read the bible and do the math yourself. All the facts you need for the start is in genesis.

God created earth on 7 day......check....Genesis 1

God created man on the 6:th day......check....Genesis 1:24-31

Then in Genesis 5 the bible very clearly goes though the tree of Adam. Saying Adam became 930 years old, Seth 912 and so on. Then you can count that until Abraham....all the numbers are in the Genesis. Abraham is one of the more documented characters of the bible and is normally date somewhere between 1812 BC to 1637 BC.

So yes the bible clearly states how old the earth is if you indeed believe that the time span of earth began with creation by god. The problem is to pin point it more precise since there are numerous way to count the years and different types of translation of the text. But in the end, even the most optimistic counting won’t go as far back as pure discovered bones of men dated with carbon-14.

[Dem]

But how long were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?

[Dem]

Also, if you believe in the literal creation, how do you explain the arrival of new species as you progress through time?

[David_SE]

Man has not evolved in recorded history.

Well go to the closest school where they have more advanced books in archaeology and check out the evolution of mans bone structure the last couple of thousand years. Yes there are noticeable changes in our structure and it is very well documented since there are numerous well preserved findings from early human civilisation, mostly in other countries due to obvious reason.

The thing is that the bible don’t state who the Adam and Eve looked but by some strange idea people se images of them self today just because we have grown with the fact that we are an image of creator.

I view the meaning “of his own image” more like a way of how we act and function not on how we look. Like the details that difference us from animals, like feelings……compassion……..love………anger…….and other signs that the creator shows through out the bible for his people. Getting stuck on the notion that the bible meant just that we look like him is stupid.

And when it comes to the date of earth……don’t care. For me Genisis is just a quick fairytale of how we came to be that was needed to be told before the more important text comes to play. Personally its hard for me to talk with people that are trying to make every single word of the bible pure fact instead of focusing on the messages.

[David_SE]

But how long were Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden?

Don't know but Genesis 5 clearly states that he lived for 930 years. I don't readthe bible as facts but all i am saying is that there are was to date the earth if you count the seperation of light and darkness as day one, as said in the bible.

[Creefer]

OK. How about those who believe in God and accept the modern theory of evolution?

Youa are far too advanced in thought for the religious zealots here. Move along.

[Samm]

For people who believe in a god and evolution, do you believe people will further evolve? If we're "made in his image" or whatever, wouldn't that be multiple images if people continue to evolve. And at what point are people people and no longer lower lifeforms?

Actually the Bible says "Let us make man in our image..." implying that there is more than one God. But that is a topic for another day...

[Stopthinkingsomuch!!!]

When I see stories like this I imagine someone grabbing the premature findings from the scientists hands only to run to the media to spread the news.

How can a fossils disprove God? By the way God has to exist for you to disprove of it. You cannot disprove a negative.

[Samm]

Just want people to spend maybe 30 seconds thinking about why so many other planets and even moons in our Solar System can positively REEK of hydrocarbons without pressure cooking velicoraptors over geological time.

The Solar System is full of hydrocarbons that have nothing to do with living organisms and so is Earth. Oil and natural gas are organic compounds, but their source of hydrogen and carbon, two of the most common elements in the Universe, are not limited to those which previously comprised previous life forms.

[Trip]

When I see stories like this I imagine someone grabbing the premature findings from the scientists hands only to run to the media to spread the news.

How can a fossils disprove God? By the way God has to exist for you to disprove of it. You cannot disprove a negative.

You may want to reconsider this argument in your last sentence.

If you expand that argument, anything anyone might conceive of would have to exist by that argument.

And by the way, the rationale is you "cannot prove a negative" .. but that's not really how you're applying it.

[David_SE]

wrong if me

[Trip]

The Solar System is full of hydrocarbons that have nothing to do with living organisms and so is Earth. Oil and natural gas are organic compounds, but their source of hydrogen and carbon, two of the most common elements in the Universe, are not limited to those which previously comprised previous life forms.

The problem is that, to date, our ability to explore for, find and recover petroleum hydrocarbon deposits has consisted of not only interpreting paleo-deposition environments but also subsequent deposition of a porous reservoir and non-transmissive stratigraphic capping lithologic structure. Hydrocarbons have a tendency to migrate and disperse, no matter their origin.

[-American-]

The reason I can't get into the whole god thing is due to the huge amount of scientific fields you have to minimize or distort to pound a spot for faith in there. Biology, paleontology, astronomy, physics and geology all have to be wrong in one form or other to make the Bible absolute fact when it states the earth is 6,000-ish years old.

The Bible does not give the age of the Earth, never has. YEC's are those who claim the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

[Mobulis]

Those that believe in Creationism, or intelligent design, are not at odds with science, as the two ultimately prove each other.

You can’t help but be amused at men that have never left the womb of Earth, yet claim they have all the answers of the Universe and Life.


I agree the same way I'm amused at men that claim a book written 2000 years ago has all the answers of the Universe and Life.

[David_SE]

The Bible does not give the age of the Earth, never has. YEC's are those who claim the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

So when the bible tells about the creation made in 7 days and Adam created on day 6 and then gives us exact age of Adam, aka 930 years, and the sons after him......is that not a way to date earth? Or you don't believe in the text of Genesis as a part of the bible?

[Samm]

The problem is that, to date, our ability to explore for, find and recover petroleum hydrocarbon deposits has consisted of not only interpreting paleo-deposition environments but also subsequent deposition of a porous reservoir and non-transmissive stratigraphic capping lithologic structure. Hydrocarbons have a tendency to migrate and disperse, no matter their origin.

That is correct...

[CID_0687]

Meh.

[-American-]

So when the bible tells about the creation made in 7 days and Adam created on day 6 and then gives us exact age of Adam, aka 930 years, and the sons after him......is that not a way to date earth? Or you don't believe in the text of Genesis as a part of the bible?

You're talking about the KJV translation, the original Hebrew creation account in Genesis is a bit different. In the original Hebrew version of Genesis some words (that the KJV have) are not present. In Hebrew the word "Yom" is used instead of the english word "Day."

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html

Literal translations of the Hebrew word, yom, like our English word "day," can refer to a 24 hour day, sunrise to sunset (12 hours), or a long, unspecified period of time (as in "the day of the dinosaurs"). The Hebrew word ereb, translated evening also means "sunset," "night" or "ending of the day." The Hebrew word boqer, translated morning, also means "sunrise," "coming of light," "beginning of the day," or "dawning," with possible metaphoric usage (1). Our English expression: "The dawning of an age" serves to illustrate this point. This expression in Hebrew could use the word, boqer, for dawning, which, in Genesis 1, is often translated morning.

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html

A literal interpretation of Genesis one solely from scripture leads us to conclude that the days were long periods of time.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

A scripturally- and scientifically-accurate model for the creation of the universe and earth and life on it.

So as I posted before nowhere in the Bible does it claim everything is only 6,000 years old. The YEC young Earth view is an interpretation of the KJV translation.

[David_SE]

You're talking about the KJV translation, the original Hebrew creation account in Genesis is a bit different. In the original Hebrew version of Genesis some words (that the KJV have) are not present. In Hebrew the word "Yom" is used instead of the english word "Day."

http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/longdays.html



http://www.godandscience.org/youngearth/genesis1.html



http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html



So as I posted before nowhere in the Bible does it claim everything is only 6,000 years old. The YEC young Earth view is an interpretation of the KJV translation.

Well Godandsience is a site devoted to bend the bible to fit the world as sience has presented it.

Just take this:
The third day must have been longer than 24-hours, since the text indicates a process that would take a year or longer. On this day, God allowed the land to produce vegetation, tress and fruit. The text specifically states that the land produced trees that bore fruit with seed in it (3). Any horticulturist knows that fruit-bearing trees requires several years to grow to produce fruit. However, the text states that the land produced these trees (indicating a natural process) and that it all occurred on the third day. Obviously, such a "day" could not have been only 24 hours long.

Well since we know that god is allmighty, can give virgin birth and so on, but still this site questions if the lord can make plant blossom and bear fruit in less then 24 hours?

Same goes for Deuteronomy 7:9. The make the text that says the bond between god and his people can last thousands of gerenation with "has" lasted.

The bible says keep not kept.

Never the less. The first point was the same as I said, it depends both on how ou read the days in the bible but also how different cultures translates and look on how long a year is. Thats why we can pin it down exactly.

As far as for godandscience, all they do is alter modern science to fit the bible with some very lose ends.


ooo found some great stuff :)
Since God probably created Adam full grown and mature why couldn't God have done the same thing with the universe? First, note that God had a choice of creating Adam adult sized, or as a baby. Obviously if Adam was created as a baby, God would have to provide a means of nurturing him.

So our great creator that has limitless power can't take care of i child and made adam full grown just because he is lazy? But the plants he couldn't create to bear fruit? And where the hell does is say that the where fullgrown and had fruit in the same day?

[Hallelujah Sunrise]

Sure, but what about all the people in between, are they not in his image? What about people now? If we continue to evolve, how are we in his image?

I mean I can see how some believe in a god and evolution, just depends on which god.

Actually, all matter is doomed for destruction and not the other way around which only leaves God's image. Christians evolve into the person that God made them to be: in His perfect likeness.

[curtis123]

This fossil was unearthed 25 years ago.

Why all the hype now?


Could it be for the 200th anniversary of Darwin's birth?


Besides, we already have proof that humans evolved from apes. Ever seen Gary Busey?

[Marleysdaddy]

Clearly you do not understand the idea of evolution and how it differs from genotypical and phenotypical differentiation.

Well, all of us evolutionary biologists understand that evolution IS genotypical differentiation...

In biology, evolution is change in the genetic material of a population of organisms from one generation to the next.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
The definition
Biological evolution, simply put, is descent with modification. This definition encompasses small-scale evolution (changes in gene frequency in a population from one generation to the next) and large-scale evolution (the descent of different species from a common ancestor over many generations)http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/article/0_0_0/evo_02
Biological evolution refers to the cumulative changes that occur in a population over time. These changes are produced at the genetic level as organisms' genes mutate and/or recombine in different ways during reproduction and are passed on to future generations.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/cat01.html#Q01 (emphases mine)

You're sharp enough to grasp a class in introductory Biology. I think you'd like it.

[Marleysdaddy]

This fossil was unearthed 25 years ago.

Why all the hype now?


It was in a private collection.

[Marleysdaddy]

Originally Posted by Marleysdaddy
I think as Caesarean births have become safer and more common, average cranial diameter has also increased
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/j...37737/abstract

As I said earlier, better development due to the availability of better nutrition and medical advances do not equate to human evolution.

Perhaps...unfortunately, the increasing cranial diameter has NOTHING to do with the availability of better nutrition and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that babies whose heads were so large that they would have previously been "unbirthable" can now be delivered via c-section, and thus, survive to pass those big headed genes to their offspring.

[curtis123]

It was in a private collection.

Still, it's speculation, nothing more.

I'm saying you can draw a conclusion either way.

[Gray]

Man has not evolved in recorded history.

Horse freakin crap.

Just off the top of my head I can name the gene that allows the digestion of Lactose.

Many still do not have it. It is that recent.

[Marleysdaddy]

Still, it's speculation, nothing more.

I'm saying you can draw a conclusion either way.

Can you explain both of those sentences?

[Gray]

Perhaps...unfortunately, the increasing cranial diameter has NOTHING to do with the availability of better nutrition and EVERYTHING to do with the fact that babies whose heads were so large that they would have previously been "unbirthable" can now be delivered via c-section, and thus, survive to pass those big headed genes to their offspring.


More c-sections has everything to do with lawsuits and less to do with evolution.

[curtis123]

Can you explain both of those sentences?

There's no way to prove that this particular animal is a genuine "missing link" any more than the multitudes of other missing links that have been heralded over the years.

It has opposable toes and a similar foot bone. After that, it's nothing but speculation. It doesn't prove or disprove anything other than a really interesting fossil was found 25 years ago.

[Marleysdaddy]

There's no way to prove that this particular animal is a genuine "missing link" any more than the multitudes of other missing links that have been heralded over the years.

1) Science doesn't "prove" things
2) it has characteristics in common with lemur-like creatures as well as great apes, indicating that it is a "link" between the two groups. What else does it need to do to be a "genuine" link? (and it's not missing anymore :D)

It has opposable [sic] toes and a similar foot bone. After that, it's nothing but speculation.
Perhaps, to the extent that all science is speculation.

It doesn't prove or disprove anything other than a really interesting fossil was found 25 years ago.
Again, if you're demanding proof, the geometry class is down the hall and to the left :razz:

Evidence either fits a theory or it doesn't...This fossil supports the predictions of modern evolutionary theory.

[Residential Bob]

Actually the Bible says "Let us make man in our image..." implying that there is more than one God.Or one God and the heavenly host.

At any rate, the Bible calls God a spirit. That's His image. He may manifest Himself in some physical, four-dimensional way (as the Bible recounts frequently), but the physical and four-dimensional universe has no bearing on His infinite being.

I so often see people trying to jibe evolution with the "creature" made in God's image. Even in this thread. The creature made in God's image is a spiritual creature. And if God is immutable, that creature does not evolve.

[curtis123]

1) Science doesn't "prove" things
2) it has characteristics in common with lemur-like creatures as well as great apes, indicating that it is a "link" between the two groups. What else does it need to do to be a "genuine" link? (and it's not missing anymore :D)


Perhaps, to the extent that all science is speculation.

Again, if you're demanding proof, the geometry class is down the hall and to the left :razz:

Evidence either fits a theory or it doesn't...This fossil supports the predictions of modern evolutionary theory.

True, but a good scientist doesn't just make a bold claim like that, then toss the burden of proof into someone else's lap. There's some bold claims being made here, and some hefty conclusions are being jumped to.

[Marleysdaddy]

There's [sic] some bold claims being made here, and some hefty conclusions are being jumped to.

List some of these claims/conclusions and I'll address them

[curtis123]

List some of these claims/conclusions and I'll address them

Oh, come on.

"Eighth wonder of the world" ?

"in textbooks for the next 100 years" ?

You don't find that a bit lofty?

Interesting find, yes. Proof of Darwin's theory?...eh....

I don't disagree with the theory of evolution, and I'm not a religious zealot who thinks the world began 10 thousand years ago, but I don't take this or anything else at face value.

[Joeybear23]

Horse freakin crap.

Just off the top of my head I can name the gene that allows the digestion of Lactose.

Many still do not have it. It is that recent.

That is not evolution. Producing enough lactase to digest milk is tantamount to blonde hair or blue eyes. Phenotypical dominance due to environmental factors does not imply evolution, because should the factors change, such as less availability of cow's milk as a food source, the lactase production "gene" would hide again and no longer be dominant.

[Marleysdaddy]

That is not evolution.
Biologists disagree with you
Producing enough lactase to digest milk is tantamount to blonde hair or blue eyes. Phenotypical dominance due to environmental factors does not imply evolution, because should the factors change, such as less availability of cow's milk as a food source, the lactase production "gene" would hide again and no longer be dominant.

That's not how genetics works...people who are lactose-intolerant don't have a hidden, non-dominant lactase gene, they have a DIFFERENT gene and because of that they can't produce lactase.

But in a way, what you are explaining IS evolution...if suddenly cow's milk become scarce, eventually, more of the population would have the "broken" lactase gene (assuming that there was selective pressure against having an now unnecessary non-broken lactase gene).

[Joeybear23]

Biologists disagree with you

That's not how genetics works...people who are lactose-intolerant don't have a hidden, non-dominant lactase gene, they have a DIFFERENT gene and because of that they can't produce lactase.

But in a way, what you are explaining IS evolution...if suddenly cow's milk become scarce, eventually, more of the population would have the "broken" lactase gene (assuming that there was selective pressure against having an now unnecessary non-broken lactase gene).

Phenotypical changes are not modification of the species, and not evolution. You can claim it until you are blue in the face, but the lactase gene is not new to our species and was not introduced via "evolution" since recorded hostory began.

[Greyclouds]

That is not evolution. Producing enough lactase to digest milk is tantamount to blonde hair or blue eyes. Phenotypical dominance due to environmental factors does not imply evolution, because should the factors change, such as less availability of cow's milk as a food source, the lactase production "gene" would hide again and no longer be dominant.

Ok, please read the underlined sentence (underlining, is by me).

Now, please read the bolded portion (bolding is by me as well).


You have described natural selection in the bold portion, yet you claim that it is not evolution. This is akin to me saying: Your post does not exist. I can read it, therefore it does not exist.


See, the DNA molecule is a malleable hereditary material. The entire theory of evolution is based on such malleability, which is primarily due to common chemical phenomenon that accumulate over time.

Do you deny the fact that rust can build on iron that is exposed outdoors? Much in the same way that oxygen can oxidize iron over time (to make rust), changes in genetic material eventually result in different phenotypes. These changes aren't noticeable at first though!! Much in the same way that it takes TIME for the Iron atoms to become oxidized, it is the same with the DNA of an organism. You're not going to see rust on a piece of iron over one night, are you? You don't expect that to happen, right?

[Greyclouds]

Phenotypical changes are not modification of the species, and not evolution. You can claim it until you are blue in the face, but the lactase gene is not new to our species and was not introduced via "evolution" since recorded hostory began.

Ok, how about the gene family that encodes a protein that degrades nylon?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=525574

Nylon has only been in existence for about 50 some odd years. Clearly a new phenotype.



See, the issue with the "newness" of alleles is that genetic information is duplicated so many times so as to make the probability of its mutation into new genotype common.


Lets say that you live alone and you have two cars all to yourself. You only need one to drive to work, so you use one car far more than the other. As such, you stop maintaining your second car as regularly as your first car. Now you have a conundrum! Your second car is easily a drain on your resources, so you have a couple of options: 1) let the car decay over time. 2) loan the car out to another person. 3) get rid of the car.

The cell has much the same situation when homologous recombination of DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homologous_recombination) results in the duplication of a gene. The extra gene isn't needed. So the natural tendencies of DNA result in the following scenarios for that extra gene: 1) it decays over time to non-coding sequence. 2) it gains a new function through mutation. 3) it is removed by homologous recombination out of the genome.

See? So genetic variability isn't some "black and white" situation in which novel genetic material is the only metric of evolution. Instead, it is the constant flux of mutation, duplication and horizontal transfer that is the true metric of evolutionary theory.

[Marleysdaddy]

Phenotypical changes are not modification of the species, and not evolution.

The majority of the time phenotypical changes reflect genotypical changes...change in the genotype of a population of organisms IS evolution.

[Joeybear23]

Ok, please read the underlined sentence (underlining, is by me).

Now, please read the bolded portion (bolding is by me as well).


You have described natural selection in the bold portion, yet you claim that it is not evolution. This is akin to me saying: Your post does not exist. I can read it, therefore it does not exist.


See, the DNA molecule is a malleable hereditary material. The entire theory of evolution is based on such malleability, which is primarily due to common chemical phenomenon that accumulate over time.

Do you deny the fact that rust can build on iron that is exposed outdoors? Much in the same way that oxygen can oxidize iron over time (to make rust), changes in genetic material eventually result in different phenotypes. These changes aren't noticeable at first though!! Much in the same way that it takes TIME for the Iron atoms to become oxidized, it is the same with the DNA of an organism. You're not going to see rust on a piece of iron over one night, are you? You don't expect that to happen, right?

Do you have any evidence of the lactase gene spontaniously appearing, say through mutation? No. The lactase gene, to our knowledge, has always been present in the species.

Evolution of man has not been observed in recorded history.
Again, as I stated before in this thread and many others, I am on the fence on evolution. I find it funny what lengths people will go to in order to "prove" evolution by extrapolating out observed phenotypical changes and claim they would eventually modify the species. It hasn't been observed. To our knowledge, man has not evolved in recorded history. Okay, it may take millions of years to observe human evolution, but so what? What need does science have to prove the unobserved?

[Joeybear23]

Ok, how about the gene family that encodes a protein that degrades nylon?

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=525574

Nylon has only been in existence for about 50 some odd years. Clearly a new phenotype.
Sulfuric acid can also break down Nylon.
Does that mean sulfuric acid has evolved since the invention of Nylon?
Please.


Lets say that you live alone and you have two cars all to yourself. You only need one to drive to work, so you use one car far more than the other. As such, you stop maintaining your second car as regularly as your first car. Now you have a conundrum! Your second car is easily a drain on your resources, so you have a couple of options: 1) let the car decay over time. 2) loan the car out to another person. 3) get rid of the car.

The cell has much the same situation when homologous recombination of DNA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homologous_recombination) results in the duplication of a gene. The extra gene isn't needed. So the natural tendencies of DNA result in the following scenarios for that extra gene: 1) it decays over time to non-coding sequence. 2) it gains a new function through mutation. 3) it is removed by homologous recombination out of the genome.

See? So genetic variability isn't some "black and white" situation in which novel genetic material is the only metric of evolution. Instead, it is the constant flux of mutation, duplication and horizontal transfer that is the true metric of evolutionary theory.

Darn. I was hoping you'd give me some evidence of human evolution in recorded history... oh well.

[Greyclouds]

Do you have any evidence of the lactase gene spontaniously appearing, say through mutation? No. The lactase gene, to our knowledge, has always been present in the species.

That's not 100% true:

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2007-02/ucl-eeu022607.php

Lactose, if not properly digested, acts as an solute in the intestines, therefore drawing water out from the body and into the rectum (diarrhea). This is simple osmosis.

Human infants must produce the lactase protein in order to digest breastmilk; however, mutations to the promoter for the gene that encode for B-galactosidases have resulted in lactose intolerance later in human life. Basically, as an adult, you stop producing the lactase enzyme that you used to produce as an infant. This is a mutation that benefited humans that did not consume milk after infancy, primarily because they did not waste amino acids and ATP on the production of an unnecessary enzyme!

Europeans, though, drank cow's milk as it was preferable to water in some cases. Some individuals sustained a mutation that caused them to produce lactase throughout their lives and in greater quantities. The Europeans that did not most likely suffered extreme bouts of diarrhea and could have died from dehydration (as one would expect from lactose intolerance).


Evolution has not been observed in recorded history.

Recorded history has lasted only about 4000-6000 years. That is about 300 human generations MAX. To give you a scale of how many generations it might take to get substantial phenotypic changes in a human population:

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic459133.files/Papers/Papadopoulos-et-al-1999.pdf

10,000 generations for E.coli to get a citrate transporter phenotype.


Again, as I stated before in this thread and many others, I am on the fence on evolution. I find it funny what lengths people will go to in order to "prove" evolution by extrapolating out observed phenotypical changes and claim they would eventually modify the species. It hasn't been observed. To our knowledge, man has not evolved in recorded history. Okay, it may take millions of years to observe human evolution, but so what? What need does science have to prove the unobserved?

Bolding mine.

I think that you fail to realize the far-reaching implications of evolutionary theory on ecology, microbiology and biochemistry. That's ok though!

Evolutionary theory will not impact your daily life, but it DEFINITELY has impacted medicine and biology!

[Greyclouds]

Sulfuric acid can also break down Nylon.
Does that mean sulfuric acid has evolved since the invention of Nylon?
Please.


Really?

You're comparing a small molecular weight acid to a huge, 100+ Kdalton protein that is encoded by translation of an mRNA strand?

I'm sorry man, but you really really really need to pick up a genetics text if we are going to continue this debate in a meaningful manner.


Darn. I was hoping you'd give me some evidence of human evolution in recorded history... oh well.

See my above post.

[Joeybear23]

...Recorded history has lasted only about 4000-6000 years...

Your excuse for not having observed human evolution is noted, and understood. Conveniently, evolution takes a very very very long time, and so far has been unobservable in a human population.

That is fine. My statement stands: Human evolution has not been observed.

[Marleysdaddy]

Evolution of man has not been observed in recorded history.


I think you misunderstand what evolution actually is. Did you read the three definitions I provided?

Evolution is simply a change in the frequency of one or more alleles in a population from one generation to the next. Here is an easy example :

Say I have alleles A, C, E, and G and my wife has alleles B, D, F, and H.

Marley does not have A,C,E, and G, nor does she have B, D, F, and H.
She has some combination of those two sets, or possibly (due to a mutation), a set which contains an entirely new allele.

The frequency of at least one allele changed from my generation to my daughter's generation...THAT is evolution, and we observe it daily.

The THEORY of Evolution explains how observation (of changes in allele frequency), when compounded over extreme spans of time could lead to the diversity of life on this planet.

[sgtmac_46]

yeah, all those dinosaur fossils and the fact that the father we dig down, the simpler life forms get is all one big athiest conspiracy.......


i actually had a jehovah witness tell me that atheists actually planted all the fossils in the earth just to discredit god.......
Satan planted them there to fool us.....don't believe him! :twisted:

[Greyclouds]

Your excuse for not having observed human evolution is noted, and understood. Conveniently, evolution takes a very very very long time, and so far has been unobservable in a human population.

That is fine. My statement stands: Human evolution has not been observed.

The building blocks are readily observable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

While you cannot conclusively state with 100% veracity what the future holds, if you see parts of the process as predicted by the Theory, you can rest assured that the Theory still stands up to the test of time.

Unless you're the type of person who smells the sea air, and does not believe that a body of salt water is nearby unless you directly view it :D

[Joeybear23]

I think you misunderstand what evolution actually is. Did you read the three definitions I provided?

Evolution is simply a change in the frequency of one or more alleles in a population from one generation to the next. Here is an easy example :

Say I have alleles A, C, E, and G and my wife has alleles B, D, F, and H.

Marley does not have A,C,E, and G, nor does she have B, D, F, and H.
She has some combination of those two sets, or possibly (due to a mutation), a set which contains an entirely new allele.

The frequency of at least one allele changed from my generation to my daughter's generation...THAT is evolution, and we observe it daily.

The THEORY of Evolution explains how observation (of changes in allele frequency), when compounded over extreme spans of time could lead to the diversity of life on this planet.

That's funny. You are trying to prove observed human evolution by the mere fact that people can reproduce.

[Joeybear23]

The building blocks are readily observable:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCR5

While you cannot conclusively state with 100% veracity what the future holds, if you see parts of the process as predicted by the Theory, you can rest assured that the Theory still stands up to the test of time.

Unless you're the type of person who smells the sea air, and does not believe that a body of salt water is nearby unless you directly view it :D

It is very convenient to call observed phenomena a "building block" of an unobserved phenomena, which can neither be proven nor disproven.

[Trip]

It is very convenient to call observed phenomena a "building block" of an unobserved phenomena, which can neither be proven nor disproven.

It would be tough to dismiss genes as building blocks of the organism.

What is amazing is the discovery of DNA fulfilled the mechanism by which evolution occurs.

[CaughtInTheMiddle]

This thread may last 200 years.

[Marleysdaddy]

That's funny. You are trying to prove observed human evolution by the mere fact that people can reproduce.
The recombinant genetic changes that happen when sexual creatures reproduce IS evolution. (again, remember that evolution is a change in allele frequency from one generation to the next generation of a given population)

I really don't know how to make it any simpler.

[Marleysdaddy]

It is very convenient to call observed phenomena a "building block" of an unobserved phenomena, which can neither be proven nor disproven.

You are half right...the sentence should read:

It is very convenient to call observed phenomena evidence of a scientific theory, which can not be proven (since scientific theories can be disproven)


You are confusing the observation (the phenomenon of change in allele frequency i.e. evolution) with the theory (that those changes in allele frequency could result in the diversity of life on Earth)

[Joeybear23]

The recombinant genetic changes that happen when sexual creatures reproduce IS evolution. (again, remember that evolution is a change in allele frequency from one generation to the next generation of a given population)

I really don't know how to make it any simpler.

Changes in allele frequency from one generation to another of a given population does not result in speciation, which is the foundation of evolutionary theory.

[Marleysdaddy]

Changes in allele frequency from one generation to another of a given population does not result in speciation, which is the foundation of evolutionary theory.

It might result in speciation...the 'might' is why it is called evolutionary theory


(However, we have observed speciation...inability to utilize citrate was "a defining characteristic of the species" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment#Results) of bacteria named E. coli...thus, the bacteria that evolved the ability to utilize citrate in 33, 127 generations were no longer E. coli...those bacteria were a new species)

[Trip]

It might result in speciation...the 'might' is why it is called evolutionary theory


(However, we have observed speciation...inability to utilize citrate was "a defining characteristic of the species" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/E._coli_long-term_evolution_experiment#Results) of bacteria named E. coli...thus, the bacteria that evolved the ability to utilize citrate in 33, 127 generations were no longer E. coli...those bacteria were a new species)

well, "theory" has nothing whatsoever to do with it being speculative nor is it a reference to chance.

[Gray]

That is not evolution. Producing enough lactase to digest milk is tantamount to blonde hair or blue eyes. Phenotypical dominance due to environmental factors does not imply evolution, because should the factors change, such as less availability of cow's milk as a food source, the lactase production "gene" would hide again and no longer be dominant.

That is so uninformed and ignorant that it is not worth responding to.

[BillyBobUSA]

I think you misunderstand what evolution actually is. Did you read the three definitions I provided?

Evolution is simply a change in the frequency of one or more alleles in a population from one generation to the next. Here is an easy example :

Say I have alleles A, C, E, and G and my wife has alleles B, D, F, and H.

Marley does not have A,C,E, and G, nor does she have B, D, F, and H.
She has some combination of those two sets, or possibly (due to a mutation), a set which contains an entirely new allele.

The frequency of at least one allele changed from my generation to my daughter's generation...THAT is evolution, and we observe it daily.

The THEORY of Evolution explains how observation (of changes in allele frequency), when compounded over extreme spans of time could lead to the diversity of life on this planet.


:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Good illustration.

But I doubt it will persuade many in the audience still rejecting evolution at every level.

That one was one of my biggest difficulties in coming around to accepting what evolution is as I thought of things like a third eye popping up when people spoke of what 'mutation' is and even then, it was only less than a year ago that I realised how absolutely common mutation is.

But keep at it.

One of these days people will learn on both sides of the debate what the limits of each school of knowledge is and what its strengths are.

[Marleysdaddy]

well, "theory" has nothing whatsoever to do with it being speculative nor is it a reference to chance.

I know...I was going more for the "non-certain" aspect of theory

[Greyclouds]

It is very convenient to call observed phenomena a "building block" of an unobserved phenomena, which can neither be proven nor disproven.

Evolutionary theory CAN be falsified. If we find that beneficial alleles are NOT preferentially selected for by environmental conditions (as opposed to just random chance selection), then the Theory of Evolution is refuted.

The data so far corroborates the fact that beneficial alleles are selected FOR certain environmental conditions.


Lets go back to the Iron example, shall we? Lets say that you leave your hunk of iron out in the rain for a whole week. Then both you and I come back and find a little bit of rust on the iron.

You proclaim: "I bet that this entire hunk of iron will turn to rust, eventually, and might even totally dissolve by the process!"

I then shriek in response: "How can you say that without observing the process!!! You have no evidence that proves your supposed outcome apart from your own bias!"

You retort: "Well, its pretty obvious that, from other examples and smaller scenarios, that iron oxidizes into rust. As it oxidizes, it slowly decays and loses its original form, so why can't we make the logical leap that I made, and call it a Theory based on evidence?"

I then repeat the exact same thing that I said before.


How do you solve this conundrum? Do we not make suppositions based on evidence in the future?

[Greyclouds]

Changes in allele frequency from one generation to another of a given population does not result in speciation, which is the foundation of evolutionary theory.

Speciation is not the foundation of Evolutionary Theory. It is a predicted RESULT of Evolutionary Theory in response to geographic isolation and subsequent environmental niche openings.

[Marleysdaddy]

Speciation is not the foundation of Evolutionary Theory. It is a predicted RESULT of Evolutionary Theory in response to geographic isolation and subsequent environmental niche openings.

Bingo

If any one thing could be considered the "foundation of Evolutionary Theory" it would be the idea of natural selection, right? Or, I suppose for you lab nerd geneticists heredity could be the foundation (darn modern synthesis :D)

[Greyclouds]

Bingo

If any one thing could be considered the "foundation of Evolutionary Theory" it would be the idea of natural selection, right? Or, I suppose for you lab nerd geneticists heredity could be the foundation (darn modern synthesis :D)

Yes :)

And until we find another hereditary material that is subject to chemical change (or at least a nucleic acid system of heredity that has a different codon table), then we have solid support for the Theory of Common Ancestry as well!

[random983]

I am actually somewhat sad and feel sorry for this poor little girl..if there was anyway we could tell her what she was being used for I think she would be very upset and unappreciative of it. In the end though, it shows the silliness of them saying "this proves evolution" when I thought they had proved it long ago. So, many she wouldn't be that sad after all.

I have no issues with evolution. It's a fact, but I think it's funny they've came out and said "Lookie! Here's proof!" when they've stated there was no question against it. Evolution is the "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift" of the created. Nothing wrong with that.

[Greyclouds]

I am actually somewhat sad and feel sorry for this poor little girl..if there was anyway we could tell her what she was being used for I think she would be very upset and unappreciative of it. In the end though, it shows the silliness of them saying "this proves evolution" when I thought they had proved it long ago. So, many she wouldn't be that sad after all.

... huh?

What gives you the idea that this primate would be capable of self-reflection, let alone self-recognition?


I have no issues with evolution. It's a fact, but I think it's funny they've came out and said "Lookie! Here's proof!" when they've stated there was no question against it. Evolution is the "change in the gene pool of a population from generation to generation by such processes as mutation, natural selection, and genetic drift" of the created. Nothing wrong with that.

You can believe that, but the "created" portion of your statement has no evidence to support it.

Also, anyone who states that this "proves" evolution is incorrect. Evolutionary theory will remain a theory. Period. This is because we cannot observe the selection of alleles in all cases. WE CAN say that we have never seen evidence that suggests that selective pressures do not influence allelic distribution, so therefore the Theory of Evolution has not yet been refuted.

[Joeybear23]

Speciation is not the foundation of Evolutionary Theory. It is a predicted RESULT of Evolutionary Theory in response to geographic isolation and subsequent environmental niche openings.

We've had geographic isolation of subpopulations almost as long as homo sapiens is known to have existed, yet no speciation...

[Thor]

We've had geographic isolation of subpopulations almost as long as homo sapiens is known to have existed, yet no speciation...

Not true. Beak variations resulted in a variety of Finch species on the Galapagos Islands.
http://people.rit.edu/rhrsbi/GalapagosPages/DarwinFinch.html

[Marleysdaddy]

We've had geographic isolation of subpopulations almost as long as homo sapiens is known to have existed, yet no speciation...

Homo sapiens is a VERY new species (evidence suggests our species arose about 200,000 years ago)... If the DNA evidence is correct about when humans arose, we as a species have gone through about 13000 generations, so I'm not sure why you think we would have seen speciation. That would be a remarkably rapid rate of evolution. It took a population of E. coli over 12,000 generations just to evolve a mechanism for citrate transport.

[Greyclouds]

We've had geographic isolation of subpopulations almost as long as homo sapiens is known to have existed, yet no speciation...

Homo sapiens, as Marleysdaddy has already stated, is a very recent species.

Having said that, geographic locations HAVE resulted in differences in haplotype in populations. Haplotypes are frequently transferred genetic regions that have lower frequency of recombination in between.

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

So, genotypic changes that are indicative of certain geographic locations HAVE emerged! It's just that we haven't been geographically isolated from each other for that long yet!