Can anyone tell me one thing that is true about evolution? Keep in mind that the scientific method is evidential truth that can be held or seen.
What I mean is that pictures of a series of apes looking more and more like a man is only the work of someones imagination. And stuff like the geological column is drawn out to represent what scientists would hope to find if history was on their side, yet it is only in the imaginations of artistic scientists where we find it that way. And ganging up and laughing is the dumbest way of proving something is true, so your going to have to scratch your head for a while like me. Not responding will also be help to my cause. In fact I’ll post the number of views on here daily so that you will see how many people knew they had no reason to believe in evolution.
Number of views so far: 135 total views
So, don’t just jump on here and start with the bold assertions followed by condescension and then wrapping up by acting as though you have presented all the information necessary for proving evolution and that I’m just holding to some fundamentalist minority. It is not too ridiculous to ask how a theory that is taking over the world can be substantiated. I’m looking for someone who can offer objective evidence for a change. And “Yes”, I’m using this blog to point out how those of the evolutionist’s “faith” perpetuate a largely dead theory by simply asserting that the theory is true and then treating you like an idiot if you ask for proof. And if you take this seriously, I think you will be surprised at how little proof there is.
You couldn’t go wrong by starting with The Origin of Species – Charles Darwin.
He describes the book as one long argument – it thoroughly considers all the relevant objections to his theory of natural selection. It’s amazing how many of these creationists still bring up – yet the answers are there in his book – and have been for 150 years.
Of course – keep in mind that science is dynamic – it evolves as new evidence comes to hand – and it has. Darwin knew nothing about genetics and molecular biology. There is just some much converging evidence from a number of fields which have confirmed Darwin’s basic theory of natural selection and provided fuel to enable its development – and the establishment of other evolutionary theories.
Comment by Ken — April 8, 2008 @ 2:10 am
Talkorigins.org is chock full of scientific evidence, all fully supported and referenced. Try this page for example:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Comment by Matt — April 8, 2008 @ 2:45 am
“Most essentially, evolution is a historical science. Darwin valued above all else prediction and verification by subsequent observation.” p. 2, Why Darwin Matters, Michael Shermer
“Creationist like to argue that evolution is not a science because no one was there to observe it and there are no experiments to run today to test it. The inability to observe past events or set up controlled experiments is no obstacle to a sound science of cosmology, geology, or archaeology, so why should it be for a sound science of evolution? The key is the ability to test one’s hypothesis. There are a number of ways to do so,…” p.13, Why Darwin Matters, Michael Shermer
Comment by Jason — April 8, 2008 @ 4:36 am
What I mean is that pictures of a series of apes looking more and more like a man is only the work of someones imagination.
No, hominid fossils aren’t imaginary, you just don’t know about them (apparently).
Comment by Dan — April 8, 2008 @ 12:52 pm
Ken,
I understand that the theory can be explained. But realize where I’m coming from; That if it is not true (which to my mind that fact hasn’t been established yet), then you realize, Darwin has a lot of good explanations, but none to really break free from philosophy. See, though it can be explained on the level of philosophy, Darwin doesn’t attempt to explain scientifically how a bunch of single celled organisms would decide that a few of them need to be blood cells or skin cells or bone cells or whatever it takes to become a multi-celled organism. If you glue a bunch of amoebas together they’re not going to change into something. No one has taken any form of life and created another form of life even with the advantages of artificial selection. So, “Yes” I have read the majority of Darwin’s book in pieces, but I’m not convinced by his methods. And justifiably so, given that some of the popular evolutionists of today think his views were flawed. BTW I have read more evolutionists works than creationists works.
Matt,
I have spent a lot of time on Talkorigins.com and they give a lot of good, scientific explanations that I won’t deny, but I have not seen anything yet that proves evolution and being that everything can be explained quite comfortably and naturally through the mechanisms of creationism, it seems crazy to change my views simply because someone painted a bulls eye around their arrow. If someone could bring up solid proof then I would have to believe it. I’m not opposed to the truth because I think it conflicts with the Bible or my belief about God. I can easily believe in God and evolution if I thought it were proven without a shadow of a doubt. But I think history has jerked the rug out from underneath the strength of the theory of evolution and so I’m reserving my feelings toward creation/evolution until one or the other succeeds.
Jason,
Yes, and Darwin thought that we would find transitional forms too, but of the tens of millions of fossils we have only a handful of very ambiguous forms heralded as transitional and still can be explained just as well through the mechanisms of creation.
I won’t argue that evolution is not science but I will expect scientific evidence if I’m going to accept it as fact, which is why I’m here. And cosmology can still be observed as well as geology and archaeology though we can’t observe much of their past, but evolution is still a theory and waiting to be observed in the slightest.
Dan,
I see, but “apparently” you are only aware of your teacher’s explanations. If you’re going to hold a scientific view you might read what all scientists have to say about the “hominid fossils”, because then you might think it silly that you agree with one’s opinion about one thing but that his opinion does not agree with the rest of his evolutionary religious leaders. And agreeing with someone is hardly evidence, just preference. I am aware of them and they are explained quite naturally through the mechanisms of creation. No real strong proof. And it is only imagination, because nowhere has anyone found apes looking more and more like men as is DRAWN in the textbooks.
Comment by heardofgod — April 8, 2008 @ 3:05 pm
And it is only imagination, because nowhere has anyone found apes looking more and more like men as is DRAWN in the textbooks.
Sure, just completely ignore the link I gave and make up your own facts. No problem.
Comment by Dan — April 8, 2008 @ 5:50 pm
See, though it can be explained on the level of philosophy, Darwin doesn’t attempt to explain scientifically how a bunch of single celled organisms would decide that a few of them need to be blood cells or skin cells or bone cells or whatever it takes to become a multi-celled organism.
That was not Darwin’s level of observation. He went from island to island noticing the anatomical differences, anatomy and physiology. Anatomy and physiology is not a philosophy.
…I have not seen anything yet that proves evolution and being that everything can be explained quite comfortably and naturally through the mechanisms of creationism,…
There is nothing natural about the mechanisms of creation because there are no mechanisms. God said it and POOF it happened, this is not a natural occurence. How comfortable you are with this depends on which religion your are.
I hate to have a huge quote from a book but Shermer says it more concise than I could. Check out Why Darwin Matters, it address many of the things you are asking about.
“In debates with creationists they often demand “‘ust one transitional fossil’ that proves evolution, pointing to a gap in the fossil record. When I fill the gap-for example, with Ambulocetus natans, a transitional fossil between ancient land mammals and modern whales-they respond that there are now two gaps in the fossil record! This is a clever retort, but it reveals a deep error in epistemology that I call the Fossil Fallacy: the belief that a single ‘fossil’-one bit of data- constitutes proof of a multifarious process or historical sequence.
Proof is derived not through a single piece of evidence, but through that convergence of evidence from numerous lines of inquiry, all of which point to one unmistakable conclusion. We know evolution happened not because of a single transitional fossil such as Ambulocetus natans, but because of convergence of evidence from such diverse fields as geology, palentology, biogeography, comparative anatomy and physiology, molecular biology, genetics, and many more. Palentologist Donald Prothero, for example, employs the convergence technique in revealing that in addition to at least eight transitional fossils from land mammals to whales, DNA from living specimens reveals that modern whales descended from even-toed hoofed mammals called artiodactyls. Whales, it turns out, are most closely related to the hippopotamus.
No single discovery from any one field constitutes proof of evolution. It is the mass of data together, converging to reveal that life evolved in a specific sequence by a particular process, that makes the theory of evolution a singular landmark in our understanding of the world.” p.51, Why Darwin Matters, Michael Shermer
Comment by Jason — April 8, 2008 @ 6:58 pm
Thank you Jason. I know this is hard for you to argue with someone who you have a strong feeling is not arguing on the same level but humor me, please? I’ve got a lot of hopes for this and I don’t want anyone to start the insults yet (not that I think you have but this isn’t my first go around and I’m noticing a trend).
To your first comment: I was not saying that Darwin had no idea what he was talking about when I called it philosophy, I was only referring to his explanation of how things evolved. We both know that Darwin had not looked at the fossil record. Like you said, he observed anatomical differences. But you say later that one piece of evidence is not enough to prove evolution. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to explain the mechanism by which things evolved when you only had the one field as evidence (not that that was all but he was limited). Imagine why I don’t think his explanation was that scientific. I can explain why my chair that I’m sitting in does not exist, but I would have to dabble in philosophy to do it. Darwin was looking at DIFFERENCES and though he could see they were different he decided to describe how they used to be the same. That takes a lot of philosophy, though I do believe that Darwin was a brilliant man.
To the second: There is nothing natural about evolution, to me. You see, that is what is known as preference. As much as you or I want to deny that we let preference effect our judgement, these statements stand against us now. Reluctance to believe is the biggest reason why either of us are not excepting the others explanation of origins. But I’m not here to convert anyone, I believe debate is for the listeners/readers and usually creationists evidences are really cheesy, though there are some good ones like Duane Gish (sp?). So why not pole the general population and weed out the preferential treatment and deal with the objective evidences. Talkorigins.com may have it but I’ve never come across anything there and figured someone who is an evolutionist dealing with defending there own view would generally have those pages marked. Those are the pages I’d like to see. If for some reason I seem to take on the “Been there, done that” mentality I would like to be corrected. There may be some of that in my last comment, but I only mean that I’ve spent hours there and didn’t really find anything of value. I mean, if there is solid proof (convergent or otherwise)then Talkorigins.com will be a wellspring of information, but I’m not there yet when none that I have read conflicts with creationism. When I say quite naturally, I mean without a shoe-horn.
Thirdly: Your right. As a matter of fact I kinda feel like Shermer on some of that. But “it is a mass of data together, converging to reveal” that of the tens of millions of fossils, all of which are a random sample, that thought the majority should be transitional of a sort, that fact is not the case. Now if we were over run with transitional forms, I could see that convergence would be on the evolutionist side. But palaeontology is not the only place that the convergence technique is still not clearly for evolution, especially in the areas of molecular biology and genetics. At least not without preferential treatment. So I’m using convergent evidence too, and I don’t think that one piece of evidence is enough to trash an area of study. I know that it is the implication given by the title of this blog that I am looking for one proof and also the direct statement of the first sentence, but I mean that within reason. I’m not trying to be ridiculous, and I’m not trying to show the readers of this blog that I can shoot down anything that anyone says. I’m just tired of going to the nests of the evolutionists and getting lambasted with philosophy and assertions by the ones who claim to know the truth. Here, they can post if they want to and I’ll try and narrow down what I’m looking for by weeding out the evidence that is merely relative to ones preference.
I hope this is clear enough and hopefully it can be discussed sincerely without frustration or sarcasm, but history is not on my side.
Comment by heardofgod — April 8, 2008 @ 9:48 pm
Okay Dan, You are right. There is an attempt to show the ape-to-man drawings exist in reality as they are drawn. I was wrong, but I was also leaning heavily on you presenting objective evidences, not realizing that I was asserting that no one had tried, instead of asserting that it was still ambiguous. You know, drawing the picture and then trying to make the evidence agree? I have seen your page before yesterday and have weighed all of the opinions and there is still the argument of whether or not some are humans or apes that causes me to reserve judgment. Mainly because of preference. But agreeing with someone does not prove anything. That is also preference. But yes I know what you are saying and I have to recant my statement because it is only an assertion. Sorry. I will look at again and get more specific because it’s been a few months since I last went over hominid fossils. I don’t think that it falls in the category of the title though, because of the ambiguity.
Comment by heardofgod — April 8, 2008 @ 10:45 pm
Well I guess that wraps it up. No one else is posting a comment. I’m not surprised really. Many people believe simply out of faith, even evolutionists. This is a fair example of how they argue their belief even though I’ve seen worse. The biggest factor is reluctance to believe the creationist story and that is because they have been taught that it is the shallow and foolish way of thinking but I’ve seen the evidence and I may not know everything but logically speaking, creationism is more scientific in that more of the evidences can be tested and that history bears out the witness of the Bible and that no shoehorns are necessary unless of course you have a reluctance to believe, but even scientists would say they don’t allow someone’s preferences to judge the facts and yet…
Comment by heardofgod — April 13, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
Somehow i missed the point. Probably lost in translation
Anyway … nice blog to visit.
cheers, Guileless.
Comment by Guileless — June 19, 2008 @ 6:22 am
85 total views and no more comments after the 40th. The truth always has the better argument. Personally, I think it really has to do with what one wants to do with his own sin. The Christian wants to repent and be holy; the uninformed nominal Christian wants to either do enough good things to cover the bad, or fulfill the weekly supersticious acts like going to church and tithing as if they will buy God off, or figure that in the end God will compare them to Hitler or something like that and they will look like a saint; the atheist is the one who wants to deny that sin exsists.
I say, “the atheist… wants to…” because many of them will deny that sin exsists but in their heart they know that it does exsist. Logic and reason tells us this, not just the Bible. They’re just not selfless enough to accept that.
Comment by heardofgod — July 21, 2008 @ 12:33 am
I am proof of evolution; there’s no other creature on this website that has come to the (higher) realization that you need to have a drink.
Comment by Hank — September 14, 2008 @ 8:02 pm
Hank: Right. that’s hardly proof. We’re all dumber having heard it.
Comment by Sam — November 16, 2008 @ 6:52 pm
You are one of the most ignorant people on the internet. I’ve never seen anybody so afraid of the truth as to make and attack such a strawman of an argument before! You posted on Darwin’s Cat’s blog, asking for evidence of observed evolution, and I posted a link, which you have completely ignored.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
Here is one example, before I post a piece on the evidence for evolution. I think you need to read up more about Evolution, rather than using false statements!
Comment by dawkinsrottweiler — January 26, 2009 @ 12:24 am
You refute the Scientific community – (for example, the Royal Society (UK), National Geographic, Nature, New Scientist, American Scientist)and you dismiss rational, logical arguments in the blink of an eye whilst offering no proper scientific evidence yourself as to why Evolution is mistaken or wrong. I would simply be fascinated if evolution is wrong- it would teach me an awful lot, so I would love you to edify me as to why exactly, you believe what you belief in the light of an outstanding wealth of evidence. Please stop making enquiries as to what evidence we have, because I think we’ve posted enough. It’s your turn to respond perhaps.
Comment by David — January 28, 2009 @ 2:10 am
I would still be very happy for you to reply to either myself or “dawkinsrottweiler” – on either of our blogs.
Comment by David — February 3, 2009 @ 12:20 am
Hey! I haven’t been here in a little while. Dave and dawkinsrottweiler, you guys are simply interpreting evidences with your own bias. If you want evidence, then simply examine the fossil record for one transitional form. I think the lack of evidence is staggering. I don’t need to prove you wrong in order to remain unconvinced by your “evidences” for evolution.
And this is exactly the kinda of thing I have been alluding to in this post. Call me all the names you like and try and make your team sound as though it is the dominant team; that is what cheerleaders do. When your done you have completely ignored the fact that your team is one of two. You like to make it sound as though yours is the only view that exists besides that held by a handful of backwoods inbred folk who are half retarded. You can’t rely on witty and snide remarks, or talking loud, or even the number of people who agree with you. I’m going to have to see evidences now, guys.
You know creation science is not as small as you would like your readers to think. Creation science has had more evidences, by far, that can be observed, the least of which cannot be overcome by your scientists.
Okay now I would like to address the post so that you don’t start whining that I “completely ignored it”.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/04/080421-lizard-evolution.html
For the readers: This is an article about a lizard specie that was introduced to an Island thirty years ago that has developed: “Along with the ability to digest plants…” “…the ability to bite harder, powered by a head that had grown longer and wider.”
Now, here is an example of bias when interpreting evidences. When the diet of any animal changes it necessarily will develop its natural features to accommodate the change. The article suggests that these were not natural features saying, “Physically, however, the lizards were not built to digest a vegetarian diet.” without making a hypothesis as to what would happen if the lizard’s diet were to change and examining the different muscles that might be developed because of the change, it can’t be said that they “were not built to digest a vegetarian diet.” If they had examined the ancestor to make such a hypothesis, I bet you anything it would have been in the article, but conspicuously it is absent.
Now insects are much different than vegetation, agreed? The article said that its ancestors ate insects primarily. If the lizard is now eating primarily vegetation then the differences in many features would be phenomenal. At least I would expect there to be some major differences. This is another case of an evolutionist, pumped full of bigotry, deciding any difference is a missing link. Surely the changes can be explained by the change of diet, you think? No. Of course not. Bigotry is your middle name. Insects are swallowed whole, mostly, and the lack of chewing and tearing would not be conducive to a very strong bite. However, if a change of diet occurred, the chewing and tearing would create nice strong muscles. The extra muscle in the head would effect the size and shape of the head somewhat. The eating of more vegetation to make up for the alternate diet would definitely have an effect on the size of the gut. And the digestive system being exercised would cause muscles that were quite possibly previously unseen to be more prominent. But none of this is addressed in the article because they were trying to make it sound like a unobjectionable proof of macro evolution. However we get a glimpse of some honesty at the end of the article:
“‘The study demonstrates that a lot of change happens in island environments,’ said Andrew Hendry, a biology professor at Montreal’s McGill University.
‘What could be debated, however, is how those changes are interpreted—whether or not they had a genetic basis and not a “plastic response to the environment,’ said Hendry, who was not associated with the study.
There’s no dispute that major changes to the lizards’ digestive tract occurred. ‘That kind of change is really dramatic,’ he added.
‘All of this might be evolution,’ Hendry said. ‘The logical next step would be to confirm the genetic basis for these changes.’
Now tell me something, sir, if there are a few selective climates and environments that exist on the earth, and we have seen this lizard function in only two of them and each of them showing a dramatic difference, then it would probably be accurate to say that this would probably be the outcome anywhere you introduce the lizard. In a hot desert climate, it would probably die off and in an icy climate it would probably die off, but everything in between we would would see it thrive in the different ways that are given in the article. What the article or you and your evolutionist friends don’t seem to ever accept is how the lizard doesn’t need to change any more now that it has what is necessary to thrive. I would say that every difference that has been observed was all that was needed to survive and now you will no longer see any change in the lizard. That is my hypothesis. I’ll just sit back and watch your scientists make it a theory.
The article does prove one thing; micro evolution does occur when you change the diet of an animal. But a veterinarian could have told us that.
Comment by heardofgod — February 8, 2009 @ 4:11 am
Lots have been found. Would you like a very quick list of some?
xamples of found transitionary fossils (apart from human remains) include Haasiophis terrasanctus, Pachyrhachis, Mososaurs, Pezosiren portelli, Runcaria and Halkiera just to name a few.
Just a few days, but I guess you don’t follow actual scientific news, remains of Maiacetus inuus were analysed in a fascinating paper.
I suggest you do more reading.
Sadly, that does seem to be the case. I hate to do the numbers game but you brought it up; what percentage, do you think, of the scientific community hold with the Theory of Evolution? Last estimates were up around 99.4% or so.
What evidence would you like? Geology? Check. Biology? Check. Palaeontology? Check. Genetics? Check. Language? Check. Species distribution? Check. Should I continue?
Such as? You seem to be talking a lot but not actually presenting any actual evidence of any sort at all.
What? You mean a species changed to accommodate changes in it’s environment?
Hold on, isn’t that the driving factor behind the Theory of Evolution?
You’re not thinking it through. How did it change it’s diet if it was not physically able to handle it? The species probably could, with great difficulty, so environmental factors (such as food availability) became a driving factor in the species adapting and thus evolving to better suit it’s changed conditions. And that’s what the Theory of Evolution is all about.
(snip a whole bunch of suppositions which have no actual evidence behind them and certainly no science)
And macro-evolution occurs when a lot of micro-evolution occurs over a long period of time. Lots of small changes = a big change over time.
It’s not a hard concept to understand.
Comment by Matt — February 8, 2009 @ 4:13 am
I’d just like to emphasize Matt’s reply. Evolution is a fact, it makes testable predictions and occurs all around us, every day albeit slowly. Without an understand of evolution we would not have modern medicine. Many more people would be dead now as a result of a misunderstanding of how HIV or antibiotic resistance works. If you dare to make the ‘argument’ of micro vs macro evolution, then that would show the level of retardation of your understanding of evolution.
Comment by kkob — February 8, 2009 @ 11:47 pm
The “science” that you highlighted is rather benighted. Matthew is correct, you have not read this article properly. Alas, you probably anticipated my saying that, let me expand. You don’t seem to be highlighting or educating us on the gaping holes of evolution, merely making grand-gesture statements about why we (as evolutionists) are wrong using false(!) anecdotal evidence. I have presented to you transitional fossil records before, along with evolutionary data- and I note that both Matthew and Dawkin’s Rottweiler have examples of these on their blogs.
I mean, fundamentally, why do you think that people hold to evolution as a “truth” – could it possibly be because it is the best possible explanation, using the most enormous amount of evidence available? Alternatively, you could be right, and it’s all a conspiracy of science. I highly doubt that though. Why on earth would anyone disagree with creationism if it were the best possible explanation? It’s ultimately more easy to accept! The same goes for religion. The fact of the matter is, they’re not the best explanations because they have not one shred of evidence to support them. They rely on archaic and outdated texts, with creationism being intertwined with literal biblical exegesis. Any friends of mine who are Christian subscribe entirely to evolution. Evolution offers a richer understanding of what happened, backed up by evidence. I ask anyone reading this blog to post now if they believe that the evolutionist account here has been compromised by lack of evidence referenced… maybe we could post some more. I mean, we do have a lot.
Comment by David — February 8, 2009 @ 11:56 pm
Heard of god, you have fallen into the trap. You have tried to analyse something that hasn’t been stated in that article. Hold on a second, let us look at the rubbish you have actually dared to post on your own blog:
“However, if a change of diet occurred, the chewing and tearing would create nice strong muscles. The extra muscle in the head would effect the size and shape of the head somewhat. The eating of more vegetation to make up for the alternate diet would definitely have an effect on the size of the gut. And the digestive system being exercised would cause muscles that were quite possibly previously unseen to be more prominent. But none of this is addressed in the article because they were trying to make it sound like a unobjectionable proof of macro evolution.”
1. Chewing and tearing creating strong muscles?! You are not a scientist, so please don’t pretend to be one! Can you please back this up with evidence as to how this would occur so dramatically in a lizard? EVIDENCE please.
2. Muscles previously unseen becoming more prominent?! You are amusing! It’s not a case of just ’seeing’ the digestive tract; it’s a case of seeing exactly WHICH structures have been formed too! Read the article properly, it’s not trying to talk simply about an enlargement of the GI tract. “Researchers found that the lizards developed cecal valves”: You don’t develop cecal valves just by exercising them as you have implied. You need to study more Biology than just Evolution!
3. Where in the article does it try to prove macroevolution? Show us exactly where it says that. EVIDENCE please!
4. It may seem unfair that this attack on you is personal, but the way in which you are promoting ignorance without any credentials whatsoever is utterly disgraceful. You clearly haven’t studied what you are trying to argue against, and aren’t even aware of the basics behind many Biological processes. I suggest you go back to school first before attempting to sound smart.
Comment by dawkinsrottweiler — February 9, 2009 @ 12:11 am
One more thing, how about posting some Evidence AGAINST Evolution?! Not stupid arguments, or lack of evidences for Evolution, let’s have some SOLID evidence which cannot be explained by Evolution. I repeat, not silly arguments of Evolutionists creating conspiracy theories, or there being no evidence to support Evolution. You want to disprove Evolution using science?! Then do science! Find us solid, conclusive, mutually supporting Evidence that goes against Evolution.
Comment by dawkinsrottweiler — February 9, 2009 @ 12:15 am
I second such a motion. I would appreciate some science to counteract science. This is not even a dialectical discussion against faith- this is just about science, and I feel compelled to post because I don’t agree with you at all. This is an important issue because it’s due to such nonsensical premises that we have creationism being taught as fact in schools in America. It’s creating political mandate and it’s terribly fallacious. It has gone too far.
Comment by David — February 9, 2009 @ 12:20 am
“I’m just tired of going to the nests of the evolutionists and getting lambasted with philosophy and assertions by the ones who claim to know the truth. Here, they can post if they want to and I’ll try and narrow down what I’m looking for by weeding out the evidence that is merely relative to ones preference.”
I am genuinely not trying to poke fun at anyone, or to lambast anyone with philosophy. I love the truth and I would be happy in being wrong. I work with the best evidence and the best evidence is evolution- by far. If it wasn’t, I wouldn’t believe in evolution. I don’t have any alterior motives! I’d like to understand more on how my presented evidence is merely relative to my preference. Maybe then I could help you.
With Kindest Regards,
David
Comment by David — February 9, 2009 @ 12:28 am
Lots have been found. Would you like a very quick list of some?
xamples of found transitionary fossils (apart from human remains) include Haasiophis terrasanctus, Pachyrhachis, Mososaurs, Pezosiren portelli, Runcaria and Halkiera just to name a few.
Just a few days, but I guess you don’t follow actual scientific news, remains of Maiacetus inuus were analysed in a fascinating paper.
I suggest you do more reading.
Thank you Matt. This is a list that I can look into. Of course, right away I would like to say that my main contention is truly with the fact that tens of millions of fossils have been found and the number of transitional forms is not even pushing the hundreds. I’m saying that not as an after thought being that you have given some examples, but that is what I have maintained throughout this post. I will look at your examples and respond later.
Sadly, that does seem to be the case. I hate to do the numbers game but you brought it up; what percentage, do you think, of the scientific community hold with the Theory of Evolution? Last estimates were up around 99.4% or so.
Again, it doesn’t matter how many say it, if it is not true then it is not true. As far as the ratio, when you have the government take over the curriculum in the way that it has, it’s only natural that evolution would be the popular view. Don’t flatter yourself though, because it is actually a significant minority in the field of science that are creationists. Your number is probably based on an exclusive number of scientists. I would make mine exclusive only to those not possessing P.h.d.’s. You would find a different percentage then.
What evidence would you like? Geology? Check. Biology? Check. Palaeontology? Check. Genetics? Check. Language? Check. Species distribution? Check. Should I continue?
No. I would like you to go back and show me how those all check out to you. Matt, I’m not saying that you’re stupid or that people with P.h.d.’s haven’t asserted that in the areas geology, biology, paleontology, genetics,etc. that evolution has been proven. I’m saying that they only assert that evolution has been proven. So you asserting it is kinda the same thing. If you could, maybe throw up some real hardcore evidence and finish me off. I mean after all you are a wellspring of information spewing forth knowledge constantly. I’m just asking for one shred of evidence that specie boundaries were crossed.
Such as? You seem to be talking a lot but not actually presenting any actual evidence of any sort at all.
Well, it is my blog and I’m the one asking for evidence but as a concession my friend, I’ll humor you. In the area of geology: Helium leaching showing a date of not more than 14,000 years in the same zircons that show between 800 million years to 1.5 billion years when using the radiometric dating method when helium leaching is observable. Paleontology: The lack of transitional forms, whether you can name a few or not, there is an overwhelming lack of transitional forms. Biology and genetics: The major differences in DNA sequences; contradictory phylogenies; and the complexity of even the simplest cells. I believe this is enough information to leave you unable to compete. If these kill the theory, we can then take the creationist approach to the other evidences which don’t contradict creation. Unless you know of some that do. But that is the evidence I’m asking for you to post.
What? You mean a species changed to accommodate changes in it’s environment?
Hold on, isn’t that the driving factor behind the Theory of Evolution?
You see. You make the same mistake that most evolutionists do. You observe a variance in a creature and that is proof that Hydrogen, given enough time, becomes a living, breathing, intelligent human being. Creationists have always believed in micro evolution and natural selection. But when species “change” to accommodate changes in their environment, there is no reason to believe that it continues changing until it is something altogether different when it has already developed the necessary structures for survival.
You’re not thinking it through. How did it change it’s diet if it was not physically able to handle it? The species probably could, with great difficulty, so environmental factors (such as food availability) became a driving factor in the species adapting and thus evolving to better suit it’s changed conditions. And that’s what the Theory of Evolution is all about.
Not physically able to handle it? Um. Did you read the same article I did? If they were not truly physically able to handle it they would have died. So now we can base it on fact that they were able to handle it. Now the fact they developed a cecal valve to slow down the food for the fermenting process is amazing but apparently part of its natural functions or else it would have, again, died.
(snip a whole bunch of suppositions which have no actual evidence behind them and certainly no science)
Um. You are pretty thick. If anything in my suppositions were unmerited then that is funny that you even hold the view of evolution. All there is is suppositions. Unless you know of some evidences contradictory to creation. That’s what I’ve been asking for.
And macro-evolution occurs when a lot of micro-evolution occurs over a long period of time. Lots of small changes = a big change over time.
It’s not a hard concept to understand.
Well when you expect me to believe assertions based on your suppositions then I guess it’s not really hard at all. But why would I acept your suppositions when you can’t even prove any shred of them. You just said that the driving force of evolution was the fact the things change to accommodate changes in their environment but now your saying that even if they arrive at the viable state of surviving that they then begin to arbitrarily evolve based on some unknown force. Sorry. Now you’re dabbling in philosophy again. I’m not going down that road unless you offer some real evidences that can be observed.
Keep the dream alive,
Sam
Comment by heardofgod — February 15, 2009 @ 6:09 am
I know everyone will probably respond to the last comment but I intend to respond to the rest of the comments soon if you would like to wait and address them together. This will keep it from being unfocused. Do what you like, I just thought I would throw that out there.
Comment by heardofgod — February 15, 2009 @ 6:21 am
What else would you expect? The ratio of (and this is using overly gross simplification of terms for overall better comprehension) transitional fossils to ’solid’ fossils is always going to be lower, just like the Theory of Evolution predicts.
And yep, that is another prediction of the Theory which matches observations. Yay science!
Now you’re just sounding paranoid.
If it is any indication, AiG tried to make a list of scientists that support the idea of creationism. Someone did a fascinating examination of that list a while back, seems the vast majority of the people on it have actually no working knowledge of the fields tied to the Theory of Evolution (being things like Mathematicians instead). Extremely few biologists or geologists (or various other related fields) on there.
In response to AiG’s list, a little thing called ‘Project Steve’ was started up which listed all the scientists whose name is Steve who support the Theory of Evolution. Now try to guess which list is noticeably longer.
So you’d exclude those scientists who have actually done the most work and possess the greatest expertise in their respective fields. Right. That makes sense.
Without going into huge detail (simply because it’s not worth the time since it seems clear you have yet to do any actual independent research/reading):
Geology: Dating techniques all check out, the dozen or so independent techniques used. Tectonic plates check out.
Biology: The Theory of Evolution forms the cornerstone for this scientific discipline. It has often been noted that Biology only makes sense through the lens of the Theory of Evolution. Basically everything in Biology comes from it.
Palaeontology: Sometimes tied to Geology but all independent dating techniques check out nicely. Predicted forms are found in predicted layers of strata and so on.
Genetics: From the fusion of the predicted chromosome in humans (yay scientific predictions!), genetic similarities between species and genetic markers that can traced back through ancestry … yeah, pretty conclusive.
Language: The evolution of human language is quite well recorded, following the known migration patterns of humans as they spread out across the globe over the past few tens of thousands of years. Records of communications (painted, scratched, carved, etc) all match age predictions.
Species Distribution: The diversity of species across the planet matches the predictions made the Theory of Evolution. On the other hand, they do not match creationism very well at all – especially the YECs variant thereof.
Wow. Been a while since I’ve seen anyone bring this old turkey up.
This is based on the work of Humphrey’s, whose work has since been found to be fault due to bad sample selection. His report was full of errors both mathematical and procedural and is not take seriously at all by the scientific community. Henke (2005) in particular tore the report to shreds.
In short: It utterly failed peer review (which is there to catch out shoddy work, such as this) and is not considered valid.
See above. And that was just a quick list, just the smallest of samples.
More information needed, be more specific. Peer reviewed research on this would be nice, for example.
Argument from incredulity.
It seems you are confusing the Theories of Abiogenesis and Evolution.
Once again, I suggest you do more reading.
Who says? Environments are constantly changing, just look at the difference of Earth between now and just a couple of thousand years ago both in terms of climate and geography. As such, species are adapting all the time. Some succeed and some don’t.
In short, the criteria for survival are constantly changing so species either continue adapting (or find a specific niche, such as crocodiles) or die.
That is the point; the species did not have the capacity/possessing of a cecal valve. It adapted and gained one in order to handle it’s new diet. That is evolution working away, just as the Theory of Evolution predicts.
Depends on which of the numerous variants you happen to subscribe to. Be more specific. Here’s a clue: the YECs variant is right out.
On the other hand, there is certainly no evidence FOR any sort of creationism that I am aware of. Certainly none that has managed to pass the peer review process.
Again, what sort do you want?
A pretty complete record of horse evolution? Got it. Love those fossils.
A pretty complete record of whale evolution? Got it. Love those fossils.
A reasonably complete record of human evolution? Yeah, got that too. Love those fossils and genetic back tracking.
Comment by Matt — February 15, 2009 @ 8:10 am
I would make mine exclusive only to those not possessing P.h.d.’s
So you’d exclude those scientists who have actually done the most work and possess the greatest expertise in their respective fields. Right. That makes sense.
Sorry. I never editted that. You’re right. That would be ridiculous. Forgive me. I’ll respond soon.
Comment by Sam — February 16, 2009 @ 12:15 am
Do you not think that really, it would have to be a massive conspiracy theory… of millions of scientists… in all different fields and specialities to get together and lie about evolution being true?
I mean, you are talking about every single one of the top scientists (biologists) in the world saying that through their personal study and research evolution is right. Some of them are even religious- I point you to the very famous and extremely intelligent, catholic Ken Miller and the previous Director of the Vatican Observatory Father Dr George Coyne. Then, to name a few, Prof. Dawkins, Prof. Steven Hawking, Prof. Robert Winston, Sir David Attenborough, Prof. Jerry Coyne. All of the Royal Society (UK). These men are lying to us all or are collectively, along with their many counterparts, mistaken, about the thing they are experts on. The reason I have difficulty accepting Answers in Genesis is because it is pioneered by a man who has a degree in applied science… he doesn’t have any specialist training or reading in evolution for him to comment! His reading, is layman reading on the topic. You wouldn’t let someone without a medical degree make a medical decision about you- why should we let a man who doesn’t have an evolutionary biology degree comment on evolutionary biology?
Comment by David — February 17, 2009 @ 1:54 am
I also find it very hard to discuss science with someone who isn’t trained in science. I’ve called such discussions “Wikipedia Discussions” because of the nature of the people involved and the constant running off to ‘learn’ a topic and then come back. It’s not about feeling superior- I couldn’t discuss the finer points of Tort Law with a Barrister; perhaps I could get the gist if I looked up wikipedia or asked a friend trained in law- but the discussion would lack a certain education- and that’s what I find with some creationists. For the most part it seems to be pseudo-science or hypothetical situations. It’s very different when you are the scientist doing the research.. I mean, I sincerely doubt whether you appreciate functional morphology or even genetics to a level required to have robust one-to-one debate… and why should you, to that level? You’re not a scientist and you don’t need to! (Are you?) But, maybe that explains why I have trouble entertaining the arguments of certain creationists- they can be very influential to very many people, based on a very shaky grounding of gists and second-hand information. If you genuinely find it fascinating- go and study Human Biology or something similar at a good university. It’ll be invaluable to you- and it’ll show you how to independently verify your information.
Comment by David — February 22, 2009 @ 3:55 am
VARIATION:
“Sampling errors” can occur in populations that alter the relative frequencies of alleles in the “recipient” population.
1) Variation exists in all populations.
2) Some of that variation is heritable.
3) Base pair sequences are encoded in a set of self-replicating molecules that form templates for making proteins.
4) Combinations of genes that did not previously exist may arise via “Crossing over” during meiosis, which alters the sequence of base pairs on a chromosome.
5) Copying errors (mutations) can also arise, because the self-replication process is of imperfect (although high) fidelity; these mutations also increase the range of combinations of alleles in a gene pool.
SELECTION:
6) Some of that heritable variation has an influence on the number of offspring able to reproduce in turn, including traits that affect mating opportunities, or survival prospects for either individuals or close relatives.
7) Characteristics tend to become more common over generations if they tend to increase the number of an organism’s offspring which are able to reproduce in turn, and tend to become rarer if they tend to decrease such prospects.
SPECIATION:
10) Populations of a single species that live in different environments are exposed to different conditions that can “favour” different traits. These environmental differences can cause two populations to accumulate divergent suites of characteristics.
11) The combination of these effects tends to increase diversity of life forms.
SUFFICIENCY:
12) Over the time frame from the late Hadean to the present, this becomes sufficient to explain the diversity of all life observed on Earth, both in what is directly seen at present, and indirectly through geologic evidence from the fossil record.
That’s what Evolution IS. If you have a problem with Evolution, you have a problem with one or more of these twelve points. Which one is it? Provide evidence that any of the points are incorrect.
Note that Evolution does NOT indicate how the first life arose; that’s a question of Autocatalytic Biochemistry, and largely dependant on the definition used to distinguish “alive” from “not-alive”. Also, Evolution does NOT indicate that all variations are explained this way; that there are no other mechanisms by which variation may arise, be passed, or become prevalent; or that there is no other way life diversifies. Any and all of these may be valid topics for conjecture… But without evidence, they aren’t science.
Other people’s opinions, presented in the form of quotes, are not evidence against the theory of Evolution. They are merely opinions, and all people have opinions which turn out to be false. So lets’ stick to the facts.
Comment by What Evolution Is — June 27, 2009 @ 4:44 pm