Transitionary Fossils

S

SJP

Guest
I forget which board the discussion was on, but some time ago, there was a discussion around evolution/intelligent design and the role of transitionary fossils in the fossil record as part of that discussion.

Just came across this article about a recent article, and thought people may be interested.


Not getting back into the original discussion tho...at least not in this thread ! :D

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/4879672.stm
 
That was on the red board I think. Very interesting discussion. Transitionary fossils, though rare, are not totally absent from the fossil record.
 
On this subject - kinda - I saw something on the science channel recently called "A Species Oddessy" - a two part little mini that speculated upon how the evolution of man progressed from tree climber to walker on two legs, to the discovery of fire and on to the appearance of homo-spien. There was a lot of gratuitous drama and invented conjecture in the show trying to show "how it might have been" but the underlying theories were fascinating. For example, its theorized that we first experimented with fire because we stumbled across a tree or bush that was burning, and while we knew the "orange beast" was dangerous - this one was small so we tried to kill it with our stick/spears.

And then the beast followed us on our stick - and then we were able to kill it - so then we tried again and learned that we could tame it.

The theory later was that since the orange beast consumed almost everything it was fed, that we gave it an animal to eat - and then the aroma attracted us and we tried a piece. And thus cooking was invented.

An interesting watch - not quality drama mind you - but interesting.
 
Frank Browne said:
That was on the red board I think. Very interesting discussion. Transitionary fossils, though rare, are not totally absent from the fossil record.

Which is exactly what one would expect. But Steve didn't want to start that thread again (I missed it the first time).

Judy
 
I suspect any such "transitionary" fossils that may be found support the microevolution fact, not macroevolutionary theory. Like the one noted above, an alligator-like creature with fins for swimming in water appears to have evolved into an alligator-like creature with legs for walking on land...microevolution.
What I firmly believe will never be found, because it, in my opinion, never happened, is a macroevolutionary fossil depicting a transitional creature positioned between ape and man, as the religion of evolutionary theory in our public schools is taught to our kids. Why does the cry of "separation of church and state" not resound here but only when we ask for equal class time for intelligent design or created life?

Edit: my apologies for the construct above - the master of the run-on sentence strikes again! :)
 
Last edited:
Interesting. I just saw this in the Chicago Tribune. Seemed on topic and timely

Fossil find fills a key missing link

U. of C. scientist says the remains of an ancient fish his team found in the Canadian Arctic show how fins developed into limbs

By Peter Gorner
Tribune science reporter
Published April 6, 2006

Paleontologists announced Wednesday the discovery of a creature they say bridges the gap between life in the water and life on land: the "missing evolutionary link" connecting fish and the first animals that crawled ashore more than 300 million years ago.

The animal, described in the journal Nature, stands at a critical juncture in the story of life on Earth. Scientists believe the transition from fins to limbs was a major evolutionary change that eventually led to the existence of humankind.

Three specimens of the creature, called Tiktaalik roseae, were unearthed from frozen river sediments on Ellesmere Island in the Canadian Arctic. The fossils, 375 million years old, show evidence not only of fish scales and fins, but also of primitive wrists, fingers, ribs and a neck--qualities shared with four-limbed land animals, called tetrapods. Its fins could have flexed and extended like an arm, leg or wing.

Some observers say the animal, which its finders jokingly dubbed a "fishapod," could be an icon of evolution as potent as Archaeopteryx, the feathery fossil showing the transition between reptiles and birds.

"It represents the transition from water to land--the part of history that includes ourselves," said Neil Shubin, the University of Chicago scientist who co-led the expedition that found it. "When we talk about the fish's wrist, we're talking about the origin of parts of our own wrist."

According to H. Richard Lane, program director of the National Science Foundation's division of earth sciences, "human comprehension of the history of life on Earth is taking a major leap forward" with this discovery. The foundation was a major sponsor of the project, along with the National Geographic Society and the researchers' home institutions.

The genus name Tiktaalik (tick-TAH-lick) means "large freshwater fish" in Inuit and was supplied from the elders of Nunavut Territory, which encompasses Ellesmere Island, just 600 miles from the North Pole. "Roseae" came from the name of an otherwise anonymous donor.

Shubin, Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and Farish Jenkins of Harvard reported the discovery. The fossil-hunters spent six years searching in the icy desert of the Canadian tundra, so inhospitable they could only work there for one month a year.

Looking for fossils from the late Devonian Period, 380 to 365 million years ago, the team endured 24-hour daylight and sleeting Arctic storms. They armed themselves with shotguns against the possibility of polar bears. "We were always looking over our shoulders; we saw lots of tracks," Shubin said.

Scientists have known that fish evolved into land creatures with backbones and four legs more than 365 million years ago, but the fossil record held large gaps about how exactly this occurred.

After learning that Devonian-age deposits in Canada had never been explored, the scientists set out in 1999 to search for elpistostege fish, the group considered to be most closely related to tetrapods. They worked 12-hour days, often walking 10 to 15 miles a day, scouring the rocks for signs of fossils.

Tantalizing fragments uncovered in 2000 persuaded the scientists to return to the site. More evidence was found in 2002, and the team returned two years later to excavate layers of a rock bluff and to look at fish bones piled there by the hundreds.

On the third day of the 2004 expedition, the team members spotted something embedded in the bluff--a crocodile-like snout.

"We did a few high fives when we uncovered the fossil, but there's only so much celebrating you can do in the Arctic," said Shubin, chairman of organismal biology at the U. of C.

It wasn't until the scientists got the material back to their lab and teased the fossil from the rock that they fully realized what they had.

"What we saw was a real mosaic between characteristics of fish and those previously thought to be only in land animals. The fossil was showing us how creatures were assembled over time to live on land," Shubin said.

Unlike any fish known to exist before or after it, Tiktaalik had jointed bones in its pectoral fins making up parts of an elbow and a wrist and primitive parts of a hand.

The creature would have been capable of a sort of pushup, Shubin said, but its mobility on land would have been limited.

"The skeleton of Tiktaalik indicates that it could support its body under the force of gravity whether in very shallow water or on land," Jenkins said.

Researchers ultimately collected well-preserved material from several specimens ranging from 4 to 9 feet long and determined Tiktaalik was a predator with sharp teeth, a crocodile-like head and a flattened body.

They speculate that crawling out of the water allowed the animal to escape pursuit by other, fiercer aquatic meat-eaters.

"This is an example of an important and extremely interesting transitional form between fish and tetrapods. It's wonderful material. The surprise is that the material is so well-preserved you can study that transition in detail," said John Bolt, curator of fossil amphibians and reptiles at the Field Museum.

The discovery suggests the transformation from life in water to life on land happened gradually in fish living in shallow water.

When Tiktaalik was alive, the land where the scientists found it was located at the equator and had a subtropical climate.

Over millions of years, drifting continental plates brought the area north to the Arctic.

"It's the best fish-fossil found so far to show how the first land animals evolved," said Jenny Clack, a land-animal evolution expert from Cambridge University who contributed an article in Nature explaining the significance of the find and comparing it to Archaeopteryx.

"It confirms everything we thought and also tells us about the order in which certain changes occurred."

----------

pgorner@tribune.com
 
All fossil are transitional. The changes are so small and over such a long period of time you are never going to find just one that links two relatives millions of years apart.
 
I am responding to only one sentence in the article Scott posted.

They speculate that crawling out of the water allowed the animal to escape pursuit by other, fiercer aquatic meat-eaters.


It is a constant source of amusement to me that the rate of evolutionary change rises or falls in accordance to the researcher's hypothesis. In this case, it seems the rate of change was faster than the pursuing meat eater.

Allow me to suggest an alternate hypothesis. It is not mine, it has been established years ago but it is appropriate here.

Marine reptiles begin to crawl out of the retreating Noahic flood waters. Gen. 8:1

For a fascinating read of a scientfic-based position against evolution:
http://www.ldolphin.org/genages.html
 
Last edited:
gkainz said:
the religion of evolutionary theory in our public schools is taught to our kids. Why does the cry of "separation of church and state" not resound here but only when we ask for equal class time for intelligent design or created life?

"Religion" of evolutionary theory? There is a LOT of scientific evidence backing up evolution, much more than creation or intelligent design as religous activists would have them taught. Yes, there's a reason it's still a "theory" just like the Big Bang. Your kids take English too, right? I'd hope they know what a "theory" is. There are also a lot of other theories taught in schools, are those religions too? Should they not be taught?

I think creation vs. evolution is the stupidest argument ever. When will both sides realize that creation and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive?!?
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yes, there's a reason it's still a "theory" just like the Big Bang.
...and gravity, electromagnetism, economics, etc etc.

flyingcheesehead said:
creation and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive?!?

Absolutely agree.
 
What is your definition of "religion"?

flyingcheesehead said:
I think creation vs. evolution is the stupidest argument ever. When will both sides realize that creation and evolution are NOT mutually exclusive?!

What parts of each do you feel are mutually inclusive?
 
Last edited:
gkainz said:
What parts of each do you feel are mutually inclusive?

Well the flying Spaghetti monster theory does not seem to jive with either one

noodledoodlewall.jpg



:D:D:D
 
gkainz said:
What I firmly believe will never be found, because it, in my opinion, never happened, is a macroevolutionary fossil depicting a transitional creature positioned between ape and man, as the religion of evolutionary theory in our public schools is taught to our kids.
Calling evolution a religion is, in my opinion, disingenuous.

Evolution Theory is based upon scientific principles which explain the facts known at the time. Scientific theory dictates that, should new evidence be discovered that contradicts the theory, that the theory is invalidated and a new theory must be developed to explain the known facts. There are those who treat Evolution as a religion, certainly - but the fanatic is not the mainstream.

Religion is, however, based upon belief which has not been proven and often can not be proven. This is not to say that Religion is false, but that its basis is one of faith and not of fact. It is not uncommon for the fervent of faith to go so far as to ignore known fact when it conflicts with religion.

As for Religion and Science being mutually exclusive? I don't think so. Spirituality is the heart of humanity, science is the brain of humanity. Without a heart, we don't live, and without a brian, we don't think. (Yes, I'm agnostic, that doesnt mean I"m not spiritual.)

Ok so that said: Greg you might not like this...

http://www.anth.ucsb.edu/projects/human/#

The gallery displays a series of skulls that have been found that go through:
- Chimpanzee - middle Miocene (16-10 mil yrs ago)
- Australopithecus afarensis - first hominid - 5.2 to 3.4 mil yrs ago)
- Homo habilis - 2.3 - 1.6 mil yrs ago "The tool maker" - I think is its nickname
- Homo erectus - 1.8 mil yrs ago - "The walking man"
- Homo sapien - 400k yrs ago
- Neanderthal - 125k - 30k yrs - side branch - not clear whether it remingled or died out
- and finally - modern homo sapiens
 
smigaldi said:
Well the flying Spaghetti monster theory does not seem to jive with either one

noodledoodlewall.jpg



:D:D:D
DO NOT DOUBT IN HIS PASTALIKE GOODNESS!!!
 
I think that the fossil record provides supporting evidence for the current theory of evolution from primates. The timeframe for the development of Australopithecus also makes sense, as the geological record indicates a period of decreased forrestation in the southern regions of Africa. The speculation is that Australopithecus was forced to leave the trees and begin wandering to survive, and that standing up to see over the tall grasses of the plains gave it a better chance at survival.
 
Greebo said:
I think that the fossil record provides supporting evidence for the current theory of evolution from primates. The timeframe for the development of Australopithecus also makes sense, as the geological record indicates a period of decreased forrestation in the southern regions of Africa. The speculation (my bold, Joe) is that Australopithecus was forced to leave the trees and begin wandering to survive, and that standing up to see over the tall grasses of the plains gave it a better chance at survival.

Why are we teaching speculation as fact in our schools, simply because those who adhere to the Humanist and Atheist religious principals insist on supressing all other religious theories? IOW, evolution as the source of life is unproven, unprovable, and has no more place in our schools than the religious philosophies currently being taught. Now, there are those who refuse to admit that the Humanism and Atheism being taught by the schools are in fact religious preachings, since such an admission would require that their unprovable beliefs cease being taught.

IOW: I disagree with your contention that the Humanist and Atheist beliefs being taught in schools are not religious education.
 
Evolution is a biological science based on a theory that fits the available facts. It doesn't talk about the origin of life, either - it talks about the mechanical development of life from single celled organisms.

I agree that there are those who wish to present evolution as some kind of death knell for religion, but those who do ARE treating evolution as religion, which is inappropriate.

Evolutionary theory on the whole is scientifically an order of magnitude more sound than what we generally think of as "speculation". That's why I specified the speculation about why Austra. started walking on two legs. We weren't there, we don't have video or any kind of historical record. We have bones. It could have happened very differently indeed - and how it happened, and why, aren't germaine to evolutionary theory.

Evolutionary theory is just about the mechanics. It neither says there was or was not a driving force behind it. It is not about belief that can not be tested or proved or demonstrated.

Religion is.

For all I know, the REASON life originated on this planet, and took the direcitons it took according to the fossil record, is because some divine entity ordained that it should be so. For all I know, the REASON life originated on this planet is simply random molecular exchanges triggering the spontaneous creation of organic matter capable of copying itself (pre-cellular matter).

Evolution can be seen as how the random development progressed, or how God made Man - as you like. It has no impact on Evolution whatsoever to presume the existance or non-existance of God.

And as far as I'm concerned, the reverse is just as true.
 
Greebo said:
Calling evolution a religion is, in my opinion, disingenuous.
Evolution is a religion, as quoted from numerous supporters of Darwinism and evolution:

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v8/i1/evolution.asp

Canadian science philosopher Dr Michael Ruse:

‘at some very basic level, evolution as a scientific theory makes a commitment to a kind of naturalism, namely that at some level one is going to exclude miracles and these sorts of things, come what may.’

‘evolution, akin to religion, involves making certain a priori or metaphysical assumptions, which at some level cannot be proven empirically.’

He said that one can’t just say that evolution is science, creation is religion, period. One has to have some other ‘coherence theory of truth, or something like that. I still think that one can certainly exclude creation science on those grounds’.

-----------------------------

G. Richard Bozarth, ‘The Meaning of Evolution’, American Atheist, p. 30. 20 September 1979.

Christianity has fought, still fights, and will continue to fight science to the desperate end over evolution, because evolution destroys utterly and finally the very reason Jesus’ earthly life was supposedly made necessary. Destroy Adam and Eve and the original sin, and in the rubble you will find the sorry remains of the Son of God. If Jesus was not the redeemer who died for our sins, and this is what evolution means, then Christianity is nothing.’

-----------------------------

http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=455

Evolution Is Religion--Not Science
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.

Abstract
The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion.
The writer has documented in two recent Impact articles1, 2 from admissions by evolutionists that the idea of particles-to-people evolution does not meet the criteria of a scientific theory. There are no evolutionary transitions that have ever been observed, either during human history or in the fossil record of the past; and the universal law of entropy seems to make it impossible on any significant scale.
...
Evolutionists claim that evolution is a scientific fact, but they almost always lose scientific debates with creationist scientists. Accordingly, most evolutionists now decline opportunities for scientific debates, preferring instead to make unilateral attacks on creationists.
...
Eminent scientific philosopher and ardent Darwinian atheist Michael Ruse has even acknowledged that evolution is their religion!
...
Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. . . . Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.
...
Sir Julian Huxley, primary architect of modern neo-Darwinism, called evolution a "religion without revelation" and wrote a book with that title (2nd edition, 1957).
...
In a later book, he he argued passionately that we must change "our pattern of religious thought from a God-centered to an evolution-centered pattern." Then he went on to say that: "the God hypothesis . . . is becoming an intellectual and moral burden on our thought." Therefore, he concluded that "we must construct something to take its place."

-----------------------------

Michael Ruse, ‘Saving Darwinism from the Darwinians,’ National Post (May 13, 2000), B3.

Michael Ruse, professor of history and philosophy and author of The Darwinian Revolution (1979), Darwinism Defended (1982), and Taking Darwin Seriously (1986), acknowledges that evolution is religious:

‘Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality. I am an ardent evolutionist and an ex-Christian, but I must admit in this one complaint. . . the literalists [i.e., creationists] are absolutely right. Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today.’
...
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist and author of a number of books on Darwinian theory, illustrates the implicit metaphysical starting point of the evolutionary dogma. Even when the facts point away from a certain scientific explanation for a given theory, evolution must be followed because the materialistic religion of Darwin must be protected against any Divine intrusion:

‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.’

Richard Lewontin, ‘Billions and billions of demons,’ The New York Review (January 9, 1997)
--------------------------------
 
Yeah, we have bones. The professor of palentology at Chicago Museum of Science & Industry thought that was good enough until it was shown to him that the T Rex they had was assembled backwards.
 
Joe Williams said:
Why are we teaching speculation as fact in our schools[?]

I almost avoided jumping in, but Joe, without speculation, we would have no topic to teach in science classes at school. For example:

Bernoulli's Principal is only a theory. Something can come along at any time and prove that it is not the way it works, and poof - no more.

All of Newton's laws are theories. They could be disproven at any time, therefore they're speculation.

And the list goes on. Would make for interesting science classes just sitting there going "The desk is hard. The floor is below the desk. The sun is at least as high as the nearest building."
 
gkainz said:
What is your definition of "religion"?

My definition would be, "A group that shares similar beliefs in a higher power." Or something like that.

My dictionary says, "The belief in or worship of a superhuman controlling power, esp. a personal God or gods."

Evolution itself is not a higher power or a god. It's a theory.

What parts of each do you feel are mutually inclusive?

Not being much of a bible scholar, I'll just put it like this:

Creation basically says that God created man. But does it say how? Was there a voice from the sky? Was there a lightning bolt from a giant index finger, and suddenly Adam was standing in the garden of Eden?

How about this for an alternative. God created the universe and all matter therein, shaping said matter into galaxies, solar systems, etc. On one particular little blue ball, He had created a primitive landscape of molten rock and water. God cooked the primordial soup and the basic amino acids formed. (This has been repeated in a lab, FWIW.) The building blocks of life. He further molded these into small microorganisms, and later sea creatures, all the while pushing continents around and creating the landscape. When finished with that, he gave a fish a little nudge and it crawled up on land. God continued to modify his creations until finally, the first human, Adam, stood in the garden of Eden, etc...

Sometimes, assumptions are made about things that may or may not be true... I am reminded of a line from the movie "Oh, God!" where Jerry, played by John Denver, asks God, played by George Burns, if He really created everything in seven days:

"Yeah, but you gotta remember, my days aren't the same as yours. When I woke up this morning, Sigmund Freud was in medical school."
 
Hmmm. I thought Curly from the Three Stooges was the missing link?
 
Joe Williams said:
Why are we teaching speculation as fact in our schools

The "What" is that man was created. Somehow. The "How" is the difference between creation and evolution. The only thing the speculation Chuck posted addresses is "Why."

My question would be, why do creationists want us to teach a view that is much more speculative than what's currently taught?
 
SkyHog said:
I almost avoided jumping in, but Joe, without speculation, we would have no topic to teach in science classes at school. For example:

Bernoulli's Principal is only a theory. Something can come along at any time and prove that it is not the way it works, and poof - no more.

All of Newton's laws are theories. They could be disproven at any time, therefore they're speculation.

And the list goes on. Would make for interesting science classes just sitting there going "The desk is hard. The floor is below the desk. The sun is at least as high as the nearest building."

But also remember that theories are not "hunches". This is a mistake that a lot of people seem to make when making the statement "It's a theory, not fact"

Theory: "[SIZE=-1]a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world; an organized system of accepted knowledge that applies in a variety of circumstances to explain a specific set of phenomena"

Law: "[/SIZE]a generalization that describes recurring facts or events in nature"

(Both definitions from Princeton's WordNet)

The theory of evolution is accepted in the scientific community. There is no debate. Why? Because the theory of evolution (along with other theories) is the cornerstone of modern biology. Among other theories are the theory of gravity, atomic theory, and theory of germ disease. Each of these theories are falsifiable. Intelligent Design or Creationism is not falsifiable. Science deals with this earth and the data we glean from the physical world around us. ID/Creationism deals with the metaphysical.
 
Richard said:
Yeah, we have bones. The professor of palentology at Chicago Museum of Science & Industry thought that was good enough until it was shown to him that the T Rex they had was assembled backwards.

Assembeled backwards? Seems like that would take more doing than assembling the skeletal remains the right way!

One question I've wondered about concerns evolution that appears to be visible in large snakes such as anacondas as we speak, is the meaning of leg bones under the skin and/or claws protruding from the snake's skin. My question is that with evolutionary changes supposedly taking place over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, what survival advantage would be driving this "transitionary stage" of evolution in this animal? Moreover, is the animal losing its legs or gaining them?

Whether in God's creative plan or something else, WT_ is the logic involved?
 
Last edited:
Bernoulli's Principal is only a theory. Something can come along at any time and prove that it is not the way it works, and poof - no more.



Bernoulli's PRINCIPAL is just that, it's proven and works... evolution, (a theory) has been thought of by one person to explain somthing that is beond human comprehension, and people are trying to find evidence to support the theory. That is why I agree with Greg K. if people can agree to disagree about creation/evolution, then WHY do we HAVE to teach evolution in school as FACT... Why are the evolutionist's so upset at teaching different ideas about where we came from?

I'll tell you why... evolutionists are humanist, not needing a God or anyone else to tell them how to live or what to believe. Creationists believe that humans are not "all powerful" and just HAPPILY believe that we were made for a reason, not an accident. EACH one is a BELIEF and thus a Religion.

People think to be a religion you have to have weekly meetings or join a cult.

My very long point being :rolleyes: if I want to have my son taught that he is special and created for a purpose, then I should have that right... what harm doe's that bring??? Believing that everyone is special and has a purpose,mmmmm that would cause harm. NOT

Just one more point, not to beat a dead horse, but if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes around? How do they survive if they are inferior? Sorry if this upsets anyone, just one guys view.:hairraise:
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
Assembeled backwards? Seems like that would take more doing than assembling the sleletal remains the right way!

One question I've wondered about concerns evolution that appears to be visible in large snakes such as anacondas as we speak, is the meaning of leg bones under the skin and/or claws protruding from the snake's skin. My question is that with evolutionary changes supposedly taking place over hundreds of thousands or millions of years, what survival advantage would be driving this "transitionary stage" of evolution in this animal? Moreover, is the animal losing its legs or gaining them?

Whether in God's creative plan or something else, WT_ is the logic involved?
Look like, is, not same.

Yes, the professor had the vertebra and some assemblages mixed up. The kicker is it was that way for over 20 years before an inquiring visitor wondered why the head was supported by what looked to be too small vertebra. Like a square peg in a round hole, just make it fit.

That can be used to illustrate the need for bridges found in evolutionary theory. So many questions (such questions begat more questions moreso than provide answers) and contrary examples--just make it fit so as to preserve the theory.

There is logic in God's creative plan. That your or I are not privy to that does not obviate the same. Lest you think it is merely a statement of faith in the unseen, one only needs to be responsibly objective in their attempt to harmonize the natural world with the Biblical record. F'rinstance, it takes both the earth and the sun to make a solar day. Once we rid ourselves of the dogmatic carelessness found on both sides of the argument we can begin to see the logic. Remember, God does not need man to be God.

Mr. Barnhill, I take exception to your statement that there is no debate. Indeed, a google search of scientists against evolution will yield hundreds of results.
 
ednowlin said:
Bernoulli's PRINCIPAL is just that, it's proven and works... evolution, (a theory) has been thought of by one person to explain somthing that is beond human comprehension, and people are trying to find evidence to support the theory.

There is plenty of evidence that supports the theory. How do you think it's been around this long?

Why are the evolutionist's so upset at teaching different ideas about where we came from?

Evolution is a scientific theory. If you want to teach creationism, then it needs to be in a theology class.

Creationists believe that humans are not "all powerful" and just HAPPILY believe that we were made for a reason, not an accident.

Evolution doesn't say that we were created by accident either, rather, by a continued refinement.

EACH one is a BELIEF and thus a Religion.

People think to be a religion you have to have weekly meetings or join a cult.

No, but you do need a God or gods (see the definition I posted before) and thus evolution is NOT a "religion."

My very long point being :rolleyes: if I want to have my son taught that he is special and created for a purpose, then I should have that right... what harm doe's that bring??? Believing that everyone is special and has a purpose,mmmmm that would cause harm. NOT

No harm in teaching your son anything you want. If I have kids and they ask why church and school say different things, I'll explain my theory of "creatiolution" to them. ;)

Just one more point, not to beat a dead horse, but if we evolved from apes, then why are there still apes around? How do they survive if they are inferior? Sorry if this upsets anyone, just one guys view.:hairraise:

Simply, because we haven't killed them. We could if we wanted to, but since we don't, and they have evolved to a point where they can cope with the rest of the world... Well, there you have it.

That inspired another thought: On land, humans are superior. In water, we are dead and every fish in the sea is superior to us.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
No, but you do need a God or gods (see the definition I posted before) and thus evolution is NOT a "religion."

I've figured that for the Evolutionary view, matter itself might actually be God.
 
Richard said:
Mr. Barnhill, I take exception to your statement that there is no debate. Indeed, a google search of scientists against evolution will yield hundreds of results.
There is no debate that evolution did not/does not occur. The only question in scientific circles is how it occurred/occurs. Which reiterates that Creationism and Evolution are separate. I urge you to find more than a handful of scientists (Note: PhD in an appropriate field, preferably biology. No honorary PhDs, no PhDs from nonaccredited institutions.) who disagree that evolution occurred. Without the theory of evolution, we would not be as advanced in medicine and the understanding of the human body as we are today. There is no debate in the scientific field whether evolution occurred. The only debate is being offered up by a handful of individuals who do not have the proper credentials (William Dembski, one of the most vocal proponents of ID, holds a PhD in Philosophy.)

Edit: I will admit that Michael Behe does disagree with evolution, and has a PhD in biochemistry. However, I'll be more than happy to find 100 fellow biochemists who say he's incorrect.
 
Last edited:
Richard said:
Yeah, we have bones. The professor of palentology at Chicago Museum of Science & Industry thought that was good enough until it was shown to him that the T Rex they had was assembled backwards.
It's an interesting experiment, if you can get someone who knows and is willing to talk about a skeletal display of a dinosaur, to have them explain how many bones in the display are actual fossils or casts of known fossils and how much of the missing pieces were left up to the imagination of the person creating it. Especially true in some of the humanoid skull pieces, as well as the well known "Lucy" display.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
The "What" is that man was created. Somehow. The "How" is the difference between creation and evolution. The only thing the speculation Chuck posted addresses is "Why."
All good points and questions. We seem to agree that man was created. By definition of creation, does it not follow that there then must be a Creator? And the Creator told us the "how" in the book of Genesis. If that's not true, then the Creator is a liar. If he's a liar, how can I then believe that I was created?

flyingcheesehead said:
My question would be, why do creationists want us to teach a view that is much more speculative than what's currently taught?
Speculative by what standard? I see a large number of scientists on both sides of the discussion when researching this. I have no expertise in science, biology, anthropology, or any of the other -ologies I read about, but I see speculation on both sides. If I see a display of skulls for example, and the anthropologist tells me that each skull is an evolutionary advancement from the previous specimen, is he not speculating? Speculating that similarities denote species, genus and whatever else he uses to say "These are of the same kind".

My twist on your question would be "Why are evolutionists so adamantly opposed to and alarmed by a creationist teaching an opposing viewpoint?" Especially if the evolutionist is so secure in their theories and can back up their theories with solid proof using accepted scientific methods. I would think that if they believe so strongly in their positions (hmmm, there's that word that makes me think of evolution as a religion again - kind of like "faith") that they would welcome opposing views - isn't comparitive analysis a good way to examine both sides of an issue?
 
Why are the evolutionist's so upset at teaching different ideas about where we came from?

Because the other theories are not science. In the scientific method you hypothesize, and then TEST the hypothesis, and then analyze the results. How do you test for God in a science class?
 
wbarnhill said:
There is no debate that evolution did not/does not occur. The only question in scientific circles is how it occurred/occurs.
I disagree - there is no question that microevolution did and does occur. The question is did macroevolution occur. Did a new species evolve from an existing species? Did man evolve from ape who evolved from fish who evolved from microbes who evolved from bacteria which evolved from primordial ooze? Where did the primordial ooze come from? Who made it?

If the above evolutionary process happened, why are there still bacteria? Why did they not all evolve? What about the apes? If man evolved from apes, why are there still apes?

wbarnhill said:
Which reiterates that Creationism and Evolution are separate.
I agree completely. If we are created, there must be a Creator. If we evolved, then random chance took over, and there was no Creator. However, if evolution is true, who created what ever you wish to choose as the starting point in the evolutionary process?
 
gkainz said:
I agree completely. If we are created, there must be a Creator. If we evolved, then random chance took over, and there was no Creator. However, if evolution is true, who created what ever you wish to choose as the starting point in the evolutionary process?

That's not evolution. That's abiogenesis, which is a whole nother can of worms. I believe the evolutionary theory is fairly sound. However, I have trouble with the life from non life "answers" I've been given.
 
N2212R said:
That's not evolution. That's abiogenesis, which is a whole nother can of worms. I believe the evolutionary theory is fairly sound. However, I have trouble with the life from non life "answers" I've been given.
I don't follow... what's not evolution? And what's abiogenesis? That's a new term to me. And, btw, just to be clear on my part, I mean macroevolution when I use the generic term "evolution"
 
N2212R said:
Because the other theories are not science. In the scientific method you hypothesize, and then TEST the hypothesis, and then analyze the results. How do you test for God in a science class?
How do you test that God does NOT exist in a science class? Which is what evolution teaches. "We are not created beings, created in the image of God. God does not exist."

And how do you test the hypothesis that man evolved from apes? Do you put an ape in the lab and watch it for the millions of years that evolution claims it takes?

I assert that one can no more test the theory of evolution than one can test for God in a science class. Although I can attest that there IS a God, especially in science class, since answer to prayer is the only logical conclusion I have for passing tests in science class! :D
 
Back
Top