| Author |
Topic:
Religious Sanctuary Thread
|
Darth_SnowDog
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
6/2/02 8:26pm
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
- Date Edited:
6/2/02 8:32pm (2 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth_SnowDog
|
Qui-rune: Here's what perplexes me...
HOX doesn't prove evolution, it shows the possibility of a mechanism that might allow for evolution.
If taking a crustacean and mutating their DNA to produce an insect offspring (by turning off the Ubx protein that produces abdominal legs in the artemia species...) isn't evidence of macroevolution, what is?
mac·ro·evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: 'ma-krO-"e-v&-'lü-sh&n also -"E-v&-
Function: noun
Date: 1939
: evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)
-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Qui-Rune
Registered:
May '02
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 3:09am
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
|
Snow-Dog,
Like I said in a previous post...
People will interpret evidence in the manor that suits their view.
The extreme religious folk will eventually have no choice but to allow their beliefs to finally catch up to science, but they will be
kicking and screaming....like trying to take a security blanket away from a child or taking the training wheels off for the first time.
I think it stems from a deep rooted fear.
-----signature-----
"Many believe that their destiny lies at the end of their Journey....but in the end it is the Journey that matters."
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_SnowDog
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 6:01am
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
- Date Edited:
6/3/02 6:03am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth_SnowDog
|
I think it stems from a deep rooted fear.
For some it's the unfounded fear their religion will be absolutely meaningless if evolution is true. I say unfounded because there's no reason to hinge your entire faith on the concept of "original sin" when Jesus did so much more than just get nailed to a cross.
For others, it's the fear that *gasp* we evolved from people of color. (God forbid!) Well, that certainly was the ignorance and fear out of which the Creationist philosophy was born.
For that matter, why does the iconography of the Church always seem to favor fairer-skinned people? What does it matter what color Jesus, or Adam and Eve, were? If the churches have finally begun to accept that Jesus wasn't dark blonde-haired, blue eyed... but rather more typically middle-eastern in appearance, then why haven't they gone out of their way to start publishing more accurate imagery? Still using the old Warner Sallman paintings? Doesn't anyone know he was once a Hollywood artist commissioned by the Vatican to make a more "marketable" Jesus?
"When you start tinkering with Jesus' face, you're tinkering with people's deepest emotions. Sallman's painting became an icon of Jesus to both Protestants and Catholics. People saw this guy as their friend. It's a way that people visualized their relationship to God."
For centuries, European and American artists depicted Jesus in a similar fashion, said Morgan. "In Western art, he's shown over and over again as a white guy who is not a Jew. Sallman's Jesus, which has been reproduced 1 billion times, was described by one wag as 'a Swede with a suntan.'"
- David Morgan, Professor of Christianity and art at Valparaiso University, Indiana
(Source: www.freep.com)
-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
_Darth_Brooks_
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 6:35am
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
- Date Edited:
6/3/02 6:47am (1 edits total)
Edited By:
_Darth_Brooks_
|
Snow Dog and Qui-Rune,
Allow me the privilege of trying to get back in here to respond. My difficulty currently is a lack of time.
Unfortunately, I have no way to bring to this screen easily much of the info I'd like to present on my behalf because it is in book form. It'd be much easier if we all had a copy whereby we could refer to page numbers and comment from there. Most of this material can't be presented comprehensively in a single paragraph, which necessitates my resorting to the key-pad. Sad to say, I'm a relatively slow typist, so this is very time consuming for me. For instance, Snow Dog, Jonathan Wells discusses HOX, as I've mentioned, but my task is to be able to abbreviate his writings, type it out with as much space as it takes for it to be coherent, and then submit it here. Hopefully, you are reasonable enough to understand it puts me in a bit of straight; not only because it is lengthy, but because the conversation here in the forum moves much quicker than my finger tips. Combine this with the available time I have for this forum, and it becomes that much more difficult.
Darth Geist brought up questions regarding the Flood, something I've been intending to return to, but as yet haven't. And the current conversation takes me further from that. I'm not ducking anything, nor have I forgotten. There is just only so much of me to spread across being a husband, a father, an employee, working overtime, and attempting to discuss this material. Geist is also an example of a compounded difficutly, namely, responding to multiple respondents.
IN the last couple of posts, before I can finish what I'm typing on Wells for dessimination here, I now see where presenting information on the Oparin Scenario, and the Miller-Urey experiments are necessary, particularly as they pertain to the NASA article involving amino acids submitted by Snow Dog. Specifically, that NASA was acting in a basic continuation of those chemical experiments involving amino acids, that it is in fact nothing new(Oparin 1930's/Miller 1950's), and with the basic limitations intrinsic towards this being applicable to the development of life, and how this brings us full back around to design hypothesis.
In short, chemicals are, if you will, nothing but material. Analogously, I could use a cake or an automobile for the purpose of expressing my view. Certainly, we mine ores, and understand the basic elements found in metals, and certainly through history have become adept at manipulating these materials, to the point of creating alloys and such, et el., with ever more sophistication and practicality to our needs. Such that, we use these materials as conductors for electricity, ad infinitum. One way in which we've fashioned these materials is in conjunction with other materials in to the common automobile. The complexity of a car next to a piece of ore is a virtual quantum leap.
We could decide to utilize a dating technique now on that vehicle, which would probably be sufficient for purposes of this illustration, but lets go a little further with the analogy. Let's suppose the car outlasted it's usefulness, such that it was junked, and various parts were smelted back down, and some were recycled and retooled for the manufacturing of microwave ovens. Some parts of the car still exist in the shape of auto parts. Papers on the car still exist. Then, the microwave was recycled.
One illustration is this;
When dating begins we could end up with results like this:
1.)the age of the microwave
2.)the age of the car
3.)the age of some alloy
4.)the age of some ore
(Here I want to inject a curiosity of the Book of Genesis, which it is your prerogative to regard as grasping for straws, but God tells man to "replenish" the Earth. An interesting word in it's implication.)
The metal itself existed in raw form previous to forging through the various forms and structures. A religious person would probably be dating the vehicle from what was written on the existant papers. A scientist from the ore. And this doesn't deal with any possible practical problems the radiation from a microwave might cause in this scenario.
A second illustration is this;
The materials in the above scenario are somewhat simple compared with the complexity of RNA and DNA, their chemical make up and their susceptibility to human manipulation. They are in essence just another material, such as ores, albeit more complex to build with, but that is precisely the task of scientists at this given time in history.
Our very greatest clue to, and proof of, God, will probably come from the evolutionists, not the theologians, precisely through this learning to manipulate the structural make up of these molecular materials.
This is my stance.
But because we can artifice ores to our likening (our technological infancy), doesn't suggest that the microwave macroevolved(although we could make that argument by definition of the terminology)all the way from the ore form. But it's various 'incarnations'certainly show intelligence behind the manipulation of it's materials.
Likewise, because we are discovering the various ways in which the genetic materials can be manipulated doesn't necessitate the affirmation of evolution. It shows at this time the possibility of the manipulation of more complex materials on our part (our technological adolescence, if you will).
Coming from an objective stance, neither brand name "creationist" or brand name "evolutionist", what I observe is scientific pre-school, in these regards, wherein we are just now entering into the sub-atomic world of elements, learning to maipulate these particular elements, in much the way children begin to initially learn the alphabet. And with the alphabet, we can spell out what we choose. We're beginning to recognize certain letters in words, letters that can also be used to spell other words.
Ultimately, the scientist is stumbling over the questions of improbability(Miller-Urey experiments)inate in these processes, all intimating design from our knowledge of the natural workings of the universe. Steven Jay Gould can offer the explanation of a paleontologist, but it is always an incomplete explanation. The design aspect will bring the scientist eventually back to a meeting place with the theologian, and the one reason and question will be; "How could you have known there was a God?"
Science and Religion are figurative books, the author of which will, I believe, be revealed as the same.
It is not a criticism when I point out that science's most rudimentary tenet is observation and alteration, and it is this alteration/change which is a most conspicious hallmark. If we are too learn from history, then we certainly know that the science of 200 years ago is inadequate, and the science of 200 years from now will likewise regard todays science as inadequate.
This is not "idiocy", "ignorance", "denial", or "fear" on my part, but rather a calm patience. I don't regard "evolutionary science" as my enemy, but a child still growing towards maturity. And when grown, it will be my staunchest ally.
Again, I will attempt to complete my posts regarding Wells words, who from the credentials given previously should meet the criterion of an authoritative and respectible voice.
Now, I'm off to work. This was my attempt, again, to clarify my position, which it seems continues to be misconstrued.
-----signature-----
"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. "
I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent.
Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_SnowDog
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 8:44am
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
- Date Edited:
6/3/02 10:01am (5 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth_SnowDog
|
The materials in the above scenario are somewhat simple compared with the complexity of RNA and DNA, their chemical make up and their susceptibility to maipulatuin (sic). They are in essence just another material such as ores, albeit more complex to build with, but that is precisely the task of scientists at this given time in history.
Do you understand how they duplicate the conditions of genetic mutation?
But because we can artifice ores to our likening (our technological infancy), doesn't suggest that the microwave macroevolved(although we could make that argument by definition of the terminology)all the way from the ore form. But it's various 'incarnations'certainly show intelligence behind the manipulation of it's materials.
One word: Mendel. Just because he wasn't aware that DNA and HOX genes are the mechanism, doesn't mean he didn't conduct experiments in crossbreeding to recreate conditions of genetic mutation, which began the path towards the intricate understanding we have today of the myriad causes of genetic mutation.
My father had done the same... about 30 years ago. In his PhD dissertation on plant physiology, by recreating the conditions of exposure to naturally-existing radioactive isotopes, he was able to observe the effects of an environmental stimulus on plant physiology, morphology and genetics. It's been a continuing process of discovery, Darth_Brooks... one that never stops.
Likewise, because we are discovering the various ways in which the genetic materials can be manipulated doesn't necessitate the affirmation of evolution. It shows at this time the possibility of the manipulation of more complex materials on our part (our technological adolescence, if you will).
Again, maybe you aren't aware that the scientific community has been studying the mechanisms of genetic mutation. Do you think they manipulate genes by "grabbing" one amino acid and replacing it with another? No. Typically what scientists try to do in every genetic mutation study is they take a mutation stimulus that occurs in the real world, isolate it and the subject being mutated, to rule out other random factors... and demonstrate how the natural phenomena causes the mutation of said genes.
Again, they're using natural phenomena to instigate chemical mutations, not just 'grabbing' and 'swapping' amino acids as some Creationists oversimplify the perception.
I'd post it all here for you, but I believe you're sufficiently intelligent enough to find this information on your own.
In short, chemicals are, if you will, nothing but material.
And? That's it? That's the premise upon which you hang your denial of the HOX gene experiments? FYI... Life really is nothing more than a metastable mass of (sometimes hypercomplex) electrochemical compounds. Do you know precisely what distinguishes living matter from nonliving matter?
IN the last couple of posts, before I can finish what I'm typing on Wells for dessimination here, I now see where presenting information on the Oparin Scenario, and the Miller-Urey experiments are necessary, particularly as they pertain to the NASA article involving amino acids submitted by Snow Dog. Specifically, that NASA was acting in a basic continuation of those chemical experiments involving amino acids, that it is in fact nothing new(Oparin 1930's/Miller 1950's), and with the basic limitations intrinsic towards this being applicable to the development of life, and how this brings us full back around to design hypothesis.
How is the NASA study limited? What measures of relevance are flawed? Which design hypothesis? Can you give even a summary of the reasons why you think you have a point to make here? By the way, do you understand the Miller-Urey experiments and Oparin scenario? You seem to be regurgitating counterarguments from someone else without yet having understood their basis.
Our very greatest clue to, and proof of, God, will probably come from the evolutionists, not the theologians, precisely through this learning to manipulate the structural make up of these molecular materials.
How does learning to modify existing life prove the existence of God? We haven't yet created organisms from inorganic compounds... but we're getting closer.
Even if we do manage to prove the existence of God, that alone by no means solidifies proof of Biblical Creation.
It is not a criticism when I point out that science's most rudimentary tenet is observation and alteration, and it is this alteration/change which is a most conspicious hallmark. If we are too learn from history, then we certainly know that the science of 200 years ago is inadequate, and the science of 200 years from now will likewise regard todays science as inadequate.
If such is the case, then why are you hinging your argument on the limitations of collected half a century ago? (Miller/Urey and Oparin). For that matter, Miller/Urey doesn't prove any point whatsoever about Creation... but, as I have come to expect, here you are regurgitating studies that weren't conducted by Creationists, weren't designed to test a Creationist hypothesis, and ultimately don't prove it. If only to show that the Miller/Urey and Oparin experiments are flawed... I find it interesting you have to reach back 50-70 years and then try to ignore newer data with "flaws" in the design hypothesis of older studies.
The Miller/Urey experiment identified only that 19 of the 90 amino acids identified (in 1953) are from earth. If amino acids are able to survive in outer space under extreme conditions, the study postulated, then this might suggest amino acids were present when the earth was formed... or that they were introduced to earth from a meteorite or other interstellar means of transport as the Murchison meteorite had demonstrated. The study doesn't presume to conclusively identify which is the case... but NASA's latest research finds a greater chance that the latter is plausible. At any rate, how does this prove God?
Again, I challenge you to find one ounce of primary research conducted by Creationists, with the purpose of isolating, testing and proving a creationist hypothesis... primary research. And present it here.
Steven Jay Gould can offer the explanation of a paleontologist, but it is always an incomplete explanation.
Yes, Stephen Jay Gould is a paleontologist... but he is also the world's leading expert on evolutionary theory from a paleontological point of view. The scope of his work has contributed greatly to the field of evolutionary science, as has the work of many other scientists. My point in bringing him up is that he is regarded by his peers, the scientific community, as the leading "spokesperson" for evolutionary science. How many creation theory supporters' views on evolution, or even their individual fields of study for that matter, are held in such high esteem by the scientific community at large?
Do you think I mean to say that the whole of evolution theory is dependent entirely on Gould's work alone? No... I of course mean that with his extensive experience being at the epicenter of evolutionary theory, many regard his words as speaking on behalf of the scientific community at large in terms of their view towards evolutionary science. Rather peculiar, because the whole of Creation Theory is, at present, dependent entirely on the presumption made by one book... because no primary research has ever been conducted to substantiate beyond reasonable doubt what the Bible asserts about Creation in particular, or to disprove the opposing theory which, again, I remind you, is far more accepted amongst the scientific community than Creation is accepted amongst the religious. Ironic, that is... in that evolution has withstood scrutiny and testing for 100 years and gets more and more proof in its corner, while Creation theory never withstands scrutiny, and depends almost entirely on blind faith and the prerequisite of 2000-year old knowledge of the world to be as true today as it was then.
Your cut-and-paste response was great... I mean, you managed to completely ignore the last 100 years of scientific research that has given us tons of information on the mechanisms by which genetic mutation occurs, and the phenotypic manifestations of those mutations as tested in isolated, controlled environments.
Do you really think that the researchers at UCSD who mutated the Ubx protein to in turn trigger the change of many other body-design genes involved in leg development aren't aware of the mechanisms by which genetic mutation occurs in the real world? Do you really think they're that stupid to not take those things into account when the sum total of 100 years of research has led to a concise understanding of many different environmental stimuli which cause genetic mutation? If you have something to contradict their findings, write up a dissertation and mail it to them... I'll be eager to see their response.
As for Wells' armchair response to evolutionary science: Being a scientist doesn't automatically mean he's conducted primary research to contradict evolutionary theory... In fact, his book Icons of Evolution essentially tries to poke holes at evolution on the basis of some rather harebrained assumptions, all of which are intended to favor Creation without actually having to prove it true. Oh, don't take my word for it... read the following commentaries on Wells, which, after reading through them, demonstrate he's about as well prepared to combat evolutionary theory as the infamous Dr. Duane Gish, leading Creationist spokesperson:
Jonathan Wells' book Icons of Evolution: Science or Myth? Why Much of What We Teach About Evolution Is Wrong(henceforth Icons) makes a travesty of the notion of honest scholarship. Purporting to document that "students and the public are being systematically misinformed about the evidence for evolution," (p. XII) via common textbook topics such as peppered moths, embryo similarities, and fossil hominids [2], Icons in fact contains a bevy of its own errors. This is not original -- creationists have been making mistakes about evolution for years. Newly and more insidiously, however, Icons contains numerous instances of unfair distortions of scientific opinion, generated by the pseudoscientific tactics of selective citation of scientists and evidence, quote-mining, and "argumentative sleight-of-hand," the last meaning Wells' tactic of padding his topical discussions with incessant, biased editorializing. Wells mixes these ingredients in with a few accurate (but always incomplete) bits of science and proceeds to string together, often in a logically arbitrary fashion, a narrative that is carefully crafted to make the semblance of an honest case for Wells' central defamatory accusation: that mainstream biologists are "dogmatic Darwinists that misrepresent the truth to keep themselves in power" (pp. 242-243).
Source: www.talkorigins.org
Wells is angry that taxpayers' money goes to research that supports evolution, and if you don't believe it does, "simply pick up a biology journal at a university library," he writes. "[M]ost articles on evolution published by Americans acknowledge financial support from the NIH (National Institutes of Health), NSF (National Science Foundation), or NASA (National Aeronautics and Space Administration)." He fails to mention that almost all basic scientific research in the United States is supported by such federal agencies.
He also fails to suggest what might be the most useful part of such an exercise - actually reading the articles to see what the scientists are saying.
Apparently, if you're really smart, you'll rationalize away the overwhelming amount of scientific evidence in support of evolution and buy into the conspiracy-theory mentality of an author who interprets science to fit his (never quite stated) religious beliefs.
Source: Access Research Network
I met Dr. Wells in 1995. He was a friendly, intelligent person, but although he already had his biology Ph.D., he didn't seem to know much about evolution. For example, he thought smooth gradation was never seen in the fossil record. He thought that the famous jaw-to-earbone series was in dispute (but it isn't). He said that "saturation mutagenesis" has shown that all developmental mutations are harmful, when in fact that process is a search for harmful mutations.
I am particularly concerned with two aspects of this book. First, Wells offers no alternative to evolution, he merely attacks.
Second, his standard for "fraud" is strange. For example, in this interview he says
"Stephen Jay Gould has known the truth about Haeckel's embryos for decades, yet he said nothing until a "creationist" (actually a Lehigh University biochemist) drew attention to them in The New York Times in 1999."
But Gould is the person who first exposed the situation, by writing a book that was a best-seller in 1979. Gould has re-exposed this situation several times in his monthly column. For Wells to say that Gould knew, Wells must have read the book (or the columns). This is very puzzling. How can Wells say that Gould "said nothing"? Is Wells just flat out lying, or does he have a unique and personal definition of "said nothing"?
Also, a letter received by the Philadelphia Inquirer in response to Jonathan Wells' book:
Richard Weisenberg's response to an article by Wells
PHILADELPHIA INQUIRER
Saturday, December 16, 2000
Page: A16
Edition: D
Section: EDITORIAL
LETTERS
CHALLENGING IDEAS AGAINST TEACHING OF EVOLUTION
I have read your essay on evolution (Inquirer, Dec. 11) and am sorry to inform you that I have given it a grade of F. If you take this class again in the future, the following comments may help you attain a passing grade.
Evolution by natural selection and the origin of life are entirely different subjects. (If you are interested in the questions of origin, perhaps you should take Biology 503, "Biogenesis"). The validity of any particular theory of biological origins (and there are several) has no relevancy to the well-established validity of evolution by natural selection.
Your analysis of the Cambrian explosion is quite strange. Surely, you remember that prior to the Cambrian only microscopic and soft-bodied organisms existed. Hence few if any fossils are expected to exist, and the lack of such fossils hardly can be used as evidence for missing common ancestors.
Haeckel may or may not have "faked" his drawings of embryos, but the conclusion that he reached - that all vertebrates develop in a pattern that reflects evolutionary history - is fully confirmed by modern studies. Apparently you missed the lecture on Hox genes.*
DNA studies have, of course, confirmed the principles of evolution. They have also added to the mechanisms of evolutionary change processes not known to Darwin (who knew nothing about DNA or even of genes). We now know that genetic change can occur not only by mutations, but, for example, by exchange of DNA between different species (the subject of the article by Professor Doolittle that you cite). It is very odd, I might add, that you would attack a modern scientific concept because it was not fully understood 150 years ago. Perhaps you should also consider signing up for Philosophy 603, "Principles and Methods of Scientific Analysis."
I can only conclude that you have failed to master even a fraction of the massive body of evidence supporting the principle of evolution by natural selection.
Your essay indicates that you have an interest in education. I hope that you remember, should you find yourself in a classroom, that a teacher's job is to provide a sound foundation in a subject. In science it is the consensus of thousands of researchers and theorists, working for over 100 years, that evolution by natural selection is the foundation of all of biology. You would do a disservice to your students to suggest otherwise. While your goal of having students "examine the evidence and think critically about it" is worthy, your essay suggests that you would be a poor guide in this respect.
Richard Weisenberg
Professor of Biology
Source: www.don-lindsay-archive-org
* The issue to which Dr. Weisenberg refers here is the sequential triggering of Hox genes during embryonic development, which bears a positive correlation to the apparent phenotypic progression of the embryo/fetus through the organisms' evolutionary lineage.
-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Peez
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 1:08pm
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
|
_Darth_Brooks_:
When we're establishing criterion there are numerous guidelines to be utilized. There has to be the credentials of the examiner to observe. Many reporters have written books on subjects that they were not immenently [sic] qualified to write, or even scholars delving into topics that aren't their field of expertise; and again, we have to ask motives, agenda's and bias. It doesn't take much for someone to be heralded an "expert" these days. In the media, this is certainly true. In the scientific community, it is not at all true.An Example; noted physicist Luis Alvarez, brilliant in his specialized field, venturing into mainstream publishing with extrapolations involving the extinction of the dinosaurs. I am sure that Dr. Alviraz was very capable in his field, but why do you characterize him as "noted" and "brilliant"?So, we end up with ground-breaking headlines on chief periodicals and prolific saturation by media that the dinosaurs were killed by the impact of a single giant meteorite slamming into the Earth 100 million(or however many)years ago in the dim prehistoric past. You appear to be confused here. Just what is a "ground-breaking headline"? I trust that you are aware that the popular press is irrelevant to science.You may have noticed this theory has changed significantly over the years, from a single meteorite striking in a single location to millions of meteorites in various locations over a period of millions of years. You are misrepresenting Dr. Alviraz's idea, whether through design or ignorance I cannot say. Long before he and his son Walter discovered evidence of a major meteor impact around the time of the mass extinction event of 65 million years ago, it was accepted that there had been millions of meteor impacts on this planet. It was also known that there have been several "mass extinction events" in the history of life on Earth. The particular insight that Dr. Alviraz offered was that a really big meteor impact may have been responsible for the latest mass extinction event. He certainly did not claim that this one impact was the only one, nor that it was somehow responsible for all of the mass extinction events, nor that other mass extinction events must also have been caused by other meteor impacts, nor that all meteor impacts caused mass extinction events, nor that other mass extinction events were not caused by other meteor impacts. The hypothesis (it is not really a theory) that Dr. Alviraz proposed has not changed significantly since he proposed it.Quite a change. Nope.Why? Firstly, doesn't it seem the media jumped the gun? Did they really check the facts? According to a published book by two scientists at the prestigious Smithsonian Institute the answer is no. They also strongly assert that Alvarez was never qualified to make the pronouncements he did, and the media was incredulously careless in picking up this proverbial ball and running with it for dessemination [sic] to the public. They go into all the politics involved in the scientific community and media, but the bulk is the indepth [sic] dispelling of the theory.(I was trying to find the book, but I've either loaned it out or it's packed up. To the best of my recollection the title is The Dinosaur Extinction Controversy.) What is your point, exactly? That the popular media are not a good source for science? That is a no-brainer. The scientific community communicates through peer-reviewed journals. Some are better than others, but they are all read with skepticism by scientists. That is why each paper published in them must be thoroughly referenced, with detailed methods and clear background, and conclusions that do not go beyond the evidence provided by the data. It is based on thousands of such papers that evolution has been accepted by the scientific community at large, and all but a few ideologically-driven scientists.
Peez
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Peez
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 1:17pm
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
|
_Darth_Brooks_:
And, why are scientists saying evolution ceased 6,000 or so years ago?
Darth Geist:
Which scientists are you referring to? None I know have ever said as much.
_Darth_Brooks_:
Well, for starters some months ago an article from a national news agency linked on the Drudge Report was one source that I read having a scientist stating humna [sic] evolution ceased 6,000 years ago. More information can be gleaned in the book referred to Qui-Rune above, titled Mere Creation.
Sorry, I didn't save any "proof" for you, but then I didn't know I'd be having this discussion. I'm just repeating the words of more academically qualified than myself.
If you can elucidate on any of the 'evolutionary' changes in homo sapien sapien in the last 10,000 years, please do so. You went from "scientists saying evolution ceased 6,000 or so years ago" to one report in an un-named "national news agency" that allegedly talks about ONE scientist stating that HUMAN evolution ceased 6,000 years ago. If you want the words of someone "more academically qualified than" yourself, I can tell you as a professor of biology that we have no reason to believe that evolution has ceased at any particular time. In fact, we see it continuing today.
Peez
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Peez
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 1:24pm
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
|
Darth Geist:
As far as the recent evolution of man is concerned, we've grown taller, lived longer, and (according to some) we're losing our little toes. I don't know about the little toes (though there is no reason that I can see for us to be evolving fewer toes), but the changes in body size and lifespan are almost certainly due to environmental influences, as _Darth_Brooks_ has noted. It is possible that there has been body size and lifespan evolution, but we have no way of testing those hypotheses.That may not be evolution on the scale you're thinking of, but it's the same principle; besides, a species as well-suited to its environment as we are has little need of adaptation. This is a good point. If a population is well-adapted to its current environment, evolution by natural selection might not cause any significant change in traits.
Peez
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Peez
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 1:29pm
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
|
_Darth_Brooks_:
I failed to make the connection between priests committing morally reprehensible actions, and evolutionist failing in 100+ years to produce some concrete, undeviating and undisputed facts. I don't know what you mean by an "evolutionist" or by "concrete, undeviating and undisputed facts." Certainly scientists have established many "facts" in the sense of hypotheses that have been so well established by empirical observations that it would be silly to deny their factuality (e.g. the Earth is roughly a sphere, it orbits the sun, life on it evolved from a common ancestor, etc.). However, I agree that science in general and evolutionary biology in particular have nothing to say about what is right and what is wrong.
Peez
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Darth_SnowDog
Registered:
Sep '01
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 2:04pm
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
- Date Edited:
6/3/02 2:05pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
Darth_SnowDog
|
Peez: The scientific community communicates through peer-reviewed journals. Some are better than others, but they are all read with skepticism by scientists. That is why each paper published in them must be thoroughly referenced, with detailed methods and clear background, and conclusions that do not go beyond the evidence provided by the data. It is based on thousands of such papers that evolution has been accepted by the scientific community at large, and all but a few ideologically-driven scientists.
I'm still waiting for Gish to team up with Wells and get the be-all/end-all of Creationist "evidence" (much less even one study on Creation theory) published in Scientific American... but something tells me I'm more likely to find it on the Institute for Creation Research website (and maybe even the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial section...).
-----signature-----
I am boycotting theforce.net
because of their homophobic, bigoted
policy concerning fanfic romance.
Others who believe this is bigotry should
boycott all TFN, Lucasfilm and IGN products.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Peez
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 2:09pm
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
|
_Darth_Brooks_:
COELACANTH
Well, I guess I did want to open that messy can of worms. It was a definite black eye for the evolutionists was it not?[/b] It was not. I honestly cannot imagine how the discovery of living coelacanths could be taken in any way as evidence against evolution.Also a strike against the integrity of many involved. Integrity? Are you saying that someone involved with this was being intentionally dishonest?They never said they were wrong, only tried to imply it was some sort of anomaly that the coelacanth still existed alive, well, and definitely unchanged without adaptation for "millions" of years, and didn't have any of the evolved descendants or traits they had
HYPOTHESIZED. Of course they admitted that they were wrong! They thought that the entire group had gone extinct, and now they admitted that it had not. It is pretty straightforward. Now, from your comment here it seems that you think that it would be a problem for evolution if the coelacanth had not evolved. This derives from your poor grasp of evolution. There is no reason to expect that the coelacanth must evolve to look different than it did. You also imply that the coelacanth has been "unchanged" for millions of years. In fact, the living species of coelacanth are not found in the fossil record at all. Perhaps you were not aware that "coelacanth" does not refer to one species, but rather to a large group that included fish with various sizes and shapes. May I suggest that you learn about it before making such statements.But, this is only one incident of many like Cro-Magnon man, which has turned out to be nothing but the deformed skeletol [sic] remains of an individual suffering severest rickets. Why do you think this? Do you think that there is only one fossil of "cro-magnon man"? (incidentally, cro-magnon is considered H. sapiens sapiens)And the list goes on and on. The list of misinformation certainly does.How many times has the bone fragment of a patella been extrapolated into some form of early man, virtually out of whole cloth, only to be quietly repudiated a short time later, with the knee chip being discovered as a part of the anatomy of some South Pacific marsupial? Bunches! By all means, give us an example (with reference, please).Not yelling, Emphasizing;
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS FOR THE 100,000'S OF LIFE FORMS THAT HAVE EXISTED ON PLANET EARTH. This is simply false, but you need to define "transitional" before it can really be addressed. In a sense, all organisms are "transitional."Reliable dating techniques? There basically are none. Most have a reliability within 5,000 years, and even then are known to fail. You seem to think that 5,000 years is a long time in geology. I would like to point out that it is about 0.0001% of the age of the earth. Can you measure anything to within 0.0001%?. If you can, then I would say that you are being very precise. In any event, there are many very reliable radioisotope dating techniques which agree with each other, and also agree with other estimates of age. This may surprise you, but the physicists actually do know some stuff. In fact, the same principals are used to make "atomic clocks" work.Geological strata has also been shown to be relatively unreliable. "They" say the Grand Canyon took millions of years to erode into it's current form, yet, When Mt. St. Helen's erupted back in the 80's, virtually over night a mini Grand Canyon was formed by the destruction. This is comical. Would you please explain how the age of the Grand Canyon has been shown to be incorrect, and why the geologists missed it.Another problem; the Grand Canyon is jagged, not smooth. The sort of erosion over time would tend to smooth the edges. Turbulent, abrupt cataclysms leave jagged, tear-like edges. Actually, the Grand Canyon looks rather smooth to me, but please provide some reference for this assertion, and explain again how the geologists missed that.How long does it take for sedimentary levels to settle? Ever stomp in a mud-puddle as a child and watch the silt filter? Yup. It never once turned into sedimentary rock.And, if there was a GLOBAL FLOOD( sea shells in Arizona, on top of Mt. Everestt, Machu Pichu, etc., and we certainly know it takes mineralized water for the fossilization process to occur, as well as the beast has to have been instantaneously layered,..), then all bets are off aren't they? Mountains such as Mt. Everest have been pushed up, and the rock in them was once underwater. There is plenty of "mineralized" water underground just about everywhere on this planet. The "beast" does not have to be instantaneously layered. In fact, geology (and physics, and biology) has shown that the idea of a global flood a few thousand years ago is absurd.The problem is you're passing on to me HYPOTHESIS and CONJECTURE and THEORY and SPECULATION and every other synonym for the word 'guess'. I should point out that "theory" in the sense that scientists use is not a synonym for "guess". Rather, it is a complex set of statements, based on reasoning and evidence, that explains a set of observations. This is not an obscure definition, it is the first one in Webster's dictionary.Darwinian Evolution is being abandoned. By who?You are up to date, right? I am, as it is my job to be.Now, they're trying to manufacture newer workable models for an evolutionary process that has yet in over 100 years to have been definitively and indisputably proven. I don't know who "they" are, but you seem be unclear on what science is and how it works. There is nothing in science that is ever "definitively and indisputably proven". Nothing at all. Science is always tentative on some level. When scientists consider something a "fact", they are merely saying that the evidence for it is so overwhelming that it would be perverse to continue questioning it (to paraphrase Gould). Of course, if now evidence comes to light, then the "fact" must be re-evaluated. To date, no evidence has challenged the common descent of living things on this planet.Let me offer kudo's for being aware of some of the most recent info I have come across containing the statements that the evolutionary process isn't currently observable in human beings. Tip o' the hat. You can tip your hat all you want, but actually evolution is easily observed in humans today. If you knew what evolution is, you would understand.BUT, the real question is not whether man stopped evolving 6,000 years ago, but whether man ever evolved.[blockquote][b]The evidence that humans evolved from non-human ancestors is overwhelming.[blockquote][b]And, evolution hasn't just stopped because of the reasons you cited, agriculture, etc.,or it would still be occuring [sic] in the animal kingdoms. I don't know what you mean by "animal kingdoms, but evolution is occurring in animals, plants, fungi, protists... In fact, there's a new theory floating around: De-evolution. It appears some scientists believe there's reason to suspect such a phenomenon. Tell us what "de-evolution" is, outline what the theory is, and name one scientists who thinks that it occurs. If you wish, a simple link would suffice.
Peez
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Peez
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 2:13pm
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
|
Darth_SnowDog:
I'm still waiting for Gish to team up with Wells and get the be-all/end-all of Creationist "evidence" (much less even one study on Creation theory) published in Scientific American... but something tells me I'm more likely to find it on the Institute for Creation Research website (and maybe even the Philadelphia Inquirer's editorial section...). Don't hold your breath. 
Peez
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Peez
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 2:22pm
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
|
_Darth_Brooks_:
But maybe we need to back up, and compare what is in agreement, and maybe we should spend time looking at what the Bible contains that is indiputably [sic] fact.
Things like the genetic material designating that all human beings did originate from one set of parents. If you mean "one set of human parents", then you are wrong. There is no such evidence. By all means show me to be wrong and post this alleged evidence (with references, please).(Yet, allegedly we have fossil remains of pre-humans across Europe, spread out and not in a single localized area. If we came out of Africa, then there were others ahead already waiting. Here again, suggesting not the evolution of a single species, and one must wonder why other species haven't evolved a necessary intelligence to survive, or why a recesive [sic] tendency towards the non-reproductivity of homosexuality hasn't been genetically weeded out of the gene pool,...but then again, this is for the evolution thread.) There are no fossils of H. habilis or fossils of any earlier human ancestors outside of Africa. H. erectus and H. sapiens spread out over the rest of the world, and we find their fossils outside of Africa. As for homosexuality, there are a number of hypotheses for why it may be found. We do not know which is true, but we do know that it does not present any evidence against evolution.
Peez
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
Peez
Registered:
Mar '02
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 3:31pm
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
|
_Darth_Brooks_:
40 dolphin fossils showing the complete development from 250,000 years ago?
Are you sure that's what you saw? Given that the best that you have managed is a vague recollection of an alleged article in the popular press, you should perhaps not be throwing stones.I don't think so. And while I can respect you're [sic] time in the museum, I also have a close relative who's a biologist, with whom I've spent considerable time discussing this subject. I suggest that you ask your biologist friend to explain what evolution is.I don't know about the dolphins, but I do know there is no alleged unbroken chain of transitional fossils housed anywhere. Ah, you have changed from_Darth_Brooks_:
THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE ARE NO TRANSITIONAL FOSSILS FOR THE 100,000'S OF LIFE FORMS THAT HAVE EXISTED ON PLANET EARTH. to_Darth_Brooks_:
I do know there is no alleged unbroken chain of transitional fossils housed anywhere. This is a typical creationist tactic, moving the goalposts. In any event, I would not expect to find a fossil of every living organism in any lineage. If nothing else, that would require billions of fossils. What we do find is many series of fossils, each slightly different than the one before it, in the right order, from one form to another in a manner consistent with evolution.I believe that's what you thought you saw, but where I'd place my money is on fibre-glass constructions artificed [sic] to resemble someone's personal conception of what might have been the evolution. Right here, I can think of a dozen skeptically valid questions to posit, but instead I'd rather have you read something else. That way, I'll tie this into your statements about men. Are you not even considering the possibility that paleontologists might actually know more about it than you? That they have actually dug up fossils? Are they stupid, or dishonest, or both?Is there really evidence that man descended from apes? Humans are apes, but yes, there is evidence that humans evolved from non-human ancestors.Many people honestly believe that the ancestry of mankind has been mapped faithfully and nearly completely. There may be such people, but the scientists who actually study this subject do not.They have heard about "missing links," and regard them as scientific proof for man's evolution from primates. However, in truth, no ancestor for man has ever been documented. That is a falsehood.The "missing links" are still missing. Talk about circular reasoning. No matter how many fossils of human ancestors are found, there will always be some "missing". For example, if we find fossils from 100,000 years ago and from 50,000 years ago, the creationsts say that there are no fossils to connect them. If we then find fossils from 75,000 years ago, they will claim that there is nothing to connect the 100,000 year old fossils to the 75,000 year old fossils. If we then find fossils from 90,000 years ago, they will ask for more, and more... Look, if I have photographs of myself at the base of Mt. Marcy, 25% of the way up, 50% of the way up, 75% of the way up, and on top, it is pretty strong evidence for my having climbed this mountain. The fossil evidence is much better than that, and of course there is plenty of evidence outside of the fossil record.Here is a summary of facts relating to some of the most well known fossil discoveries.
Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neandertal man) - 150 years ago Neandertal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an 'ape-man'. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neandertal is just a variation of the human kind. "Admitted" by who? There are a number of Neanderthal fossils, and there is no indication that they were diseased H. sapiens sapiens. If you have evidence to the contrary, by all means present it (with references, please).Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realized that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape). Ramapithecus was considered a possible human ancestor, and was never "widely regarded" as one, nor is it considered an "orangutan". It is more closely related to urangutans, possibly the ancestor of that species.Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan's jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years. Yup, "widely publicized" but not widely accepted by the scientific community.Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay. Again you are misrepresenting the truth. Here is a quote from the scientist who first described it:I have not stated that Hesperopithecus was either an Ape-man or in the direct line of human ancestry, because I consider it quite possible that we may discover anthropoid apes (Simiidae) with teeth closely imitating those of man (Hominidae)...
Until we secure more of the dentition, or parts of the skull or of the skeleton, we cannot be certain whether Hesperopithecus is a member of the Simiidae or of the Hominidae. and here is one from a contemporary:In 1920 [sic], Osborn described two molars from the Pliocene of Nebraska; he attributed these to an anthropoid primate to which he has given the name Hesperopithecus. The teeth are not well preserved, so that the validity of Osborn's determination has not yet been generally accepted. so, what is the significance of Nebraska Man?Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus. See below. I can hardly wait, but meanwhile what is the problem with the renaming? As more information became available, scientists refined their identification.Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like. It has been believed to be a possible ancestor of humans, and very probably at least closely-related to our ancestors. New evidence has suggested that it might be only closely-related to our ancestors, but the jury is still out. Scientists are always ready to re- evaluate their findings based on new evidence. By the way, Australopithecus afarensis certainly is "ape-like", but was also undeniably bipedal. How about that.Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus (see below). As I have already pointed out, we are apes (and so H. sapiens is an "ape-man"). If you wish to use the term to indicate a species that has both human and non-human ape characteristics, then H. erectus is[/i] an "ape-man".[b]Currently fashionable ape-men How about some "currently fashionable" ideas about physics: light moves at about 186,000 miles per second in a vacuum, protons have a positive charge, gravity attracts masses together...These are the ones that adorn the evolutionary trees of today that supposedly led to Homo sapiens from a chimpanzee-like creature.
Australopithecus - there are various species of these that have been at times proclaimed as human ancestors. Such as? (references, please)One remains: Australopithecus afarensis, popularly known as the fossil 'Lucy'. "Lucy" is only one of the A. afarensis fossils.However, detailed studies of the inner ear, skulls and bones have suggested that 'Lucy' and her like are not on the way to becoming human. According to who?For example, they may have walked more upright than most apes, but not in the human manner. Of course they were not as bipedal as humans, they were transitional Australopithecus afarensis is very similar to the pygmy chimpanzee. No, not even close. The pigmy chimpanzee is not bipedal, and can only walk on it's hind limbs awkwardly. "Lucy" was much more fully bipedal, as the structure of the knee and hip attest and fossil footprints confirm.Homo habilis - there is a growing consensus amongst most paleoanthropologists that this category actually includes bits and pieces of various other types - such as Australopithecus and Homo erectus. It is therefore an 'invalid taxon'. That is, it never existed as such. According to who? The older H. habilis fossils are similar to those of A. afarensis fossils, just as you would expect from evolution. The younger fossils of H. habilis are similar to those of H. erectus, just as you would expect from evolution. Perhaps you should read up on chronospecies.Homo erectus - many remains of this type have been found around the world. They are smaller than the average human today, with an appropriately smaller head (and brain size). However, the brain size is within the range of people today and studies of the middle ear have shown that Homo erectus was just like us. Remains have been found in the same strata and in close proximity to ordinary Homo sapiens, suggesting that they lived together. Of course H. erectus is similar to H. sapiens, they were our immediate ancestors. Note that the older H. erectus are more similar to H. habilis, and the younger ones are similar to older H. sapiens. Just what evolution predicts.There is no fossil proof that man is the product of evolution. Science does not deal in proof, science deals in evidence. There is plenty of evidence that we (and the other species on this planet) have evolved.Could it be that the missing links are still missing because they simply do not exist. What missing links?"Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being" (Genesis 2:7). Quotes from religious texts do not constitute scientific evidence.There are no transitional fossils. I believe that you are wrong, but it is hard to say until you actually define a "transitional fossil".I believe in genetics. I believe if a black bull mates with a white cow, their offspring could be black, white or gray. If the result of the union is another black bull, and it mates with a black cow, their calf will probably be black and no one will know there was ever a white cow in the ancestry. I'm oversimplifying here.
I believe that with the onset of the industrial revolution that white moths were eaten by birds being more easily visable, [sic] and their population dwindled. That's a type of genocide, not evolution. I believe that the gray moth's population flourished because they were well camouflaged in the soot. That's due to a bird's poor eye-sight in this example, not evolution. You clearly do not know what evolution is. Please look it up in a science text book.The moth's didn't go from what organism to a distinctly different organism. What do you mean by that?I believe in the Scientific Method. Do you mean that you believe that it exists, or that it is an appropriate way to learn about the universe?No one once has ever observed an organism transforming into a completely different organism. It is hard to tell exactly what you mean here, but a couple of comments. Evolution does not propose that an organism transform into a completely different organism, in fact observing this sort of change would cast doubt on the theory of evolution. Scientists have observed evolution (I have, and many others have as well). Plus, of course, evolution may be observed in the fossil record. You should also know that there is plenty of evidence from outside of the fossil record, and by a remarkable coincidence it agrees with the fossil record.I was taught in biology that spontaneous generation doesn't occur, and I think this applies to a "Big Bang theory" as well as just rocks. Under current conditions here, spontaneous generation does not occur as far as we can tell. Of course, contitions were very different 4 billion years ago, but in any event that has nothing to do with evolution (nor does the "big bang"). Evolution is not about the origin of life, it is about what happened to life after that.I was taught that something doesn't result from nothing, and that if you see a house you know it has a builder. If you see the design of a spider pattern in a desert you know someone's been there; and when I see the precision of the design innately built into all nature and the universe, I know there is a God. Paley would be proud. However, houses do not replicate. You may wish to reason that way, but it is not science. So much for believing in the scientific method.There is an intelligent Cause. Explosions don't result in life, but death, and they don't result in precise designs or perfectly synchronised [sic] orbits. What, exactly, do you think that the earth's orbit is synchronized with, and what has that got to do with evolution?If evolution occured [sic] their should be some equivalently intelligent species accompanying us; cows would have drivers licenses and sun-glasses. Precisely because it is necessary for their survival. It is not necessary for their survival, as is obvious (they are still alive without it). Again, you are betraying your lack of understanding of evolution.What I see is animals going extinct, not evolving. Since you do not know what evolution is, this is not surprising.
Peez
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
_Darth_Brooks_
Registered:
Sep '00
|
Date Posted:
6/3/02 6:54pm
Subject:
RE: Religious Sanctuary Thread
- Date Edited:
6/3/02 7:03pm (1 edits total)
Edited By:
_Darth_Brooks_
|
Peez,
I do not know what evolution is?
Here's one article I read, tell me if you think these evolutionists do?
Is human evolution finally over?
Scientists are split over the theory that natural selection has come to a standstill in the West. Robin McKie reports
Sunday February 3, 2002
The Observer
For those who dream of a better life, science has bad news: this is the best it is going to get. Our species has reached its biological pinnacle and is no longer capable of changing.
That is the stark, controversial view of a group of biologists who believe a Western lifestyle now protects humanity from the forces that used to shape Homo sapiens.
'If you want to know what Utopia is like, just look around - this is it,' said Professor Steve Jones, of University College London, who is to present his argument at a Royal Society Edinburgh debate, 'Is Evolution Over?', next week. 'Things have simply stopped getting better, or worse, for our species.'
This view is controversial, however. Other scientists argue that mankind is still being influenced by the evolutionary forces that created the myriad species which have inhabited Earth over the past three billion years.
'If you had looked at Stone Age people in Europe a mere 50,000 years ago, you would assume the trend was for people to get bigger and stronger all the time,' said Prof Chris Stringer, of the Natural History Museum, London. 'Then, quite abruptly, these people were replaced by light, tall, highly intelligent people who arrived from Africa and took over the world. You simply cannot predict evolutionary events like this. Who knows where we are headed?'
Some scientists believe humans are becoming less brainy and more neurotic; others see signs of growing intelligence and decreasing robustness, while some, like Jones, see evidence of us having reached a standstill. All base their arguments on the same tenets of natural selection.
According to Darwin's theory, individual animals best suited to their environments live longer and have more children, and so spread their genes through populations. This produces evolutionary changes. For example, hoofed animals with longer necks could reach the juiciest leaves on tall trees and therefore tended to eat well, live longer, and have more offspring. Eventually, they evolved into giraffes. Those with shorter necks died out.
Similar processes led to the evolution of mankind, but this has now stopped because virtually everybody's genes are making it to the next generation, not only those who are best adapted to their environments.
'Until recently, there were massive differences between individuals' lifespans and fecundity,' said Jones. 'In London, the death rate outstripped the birth rate for most of the city's history. If you look at graveyards from ancient to Victorian times, you can see that a half of all children died before adolescence, probably because they lacked genetic protection against disease. Now, children's chances of reaching the age of 25 have reached 98 per cent. Nothing is changing. We have reached stagnation.'
In addition, human populations are now being constantly mixed, again producing a blending that blocks evolutionary change. This increased mixing can be gauged by calculating the number of miles between a person's birthplace and his or her partner's, then between their parents' birthplaces, and finally, between their grandparents'.
In virtually every case, you will find that the number of miles drops dramatically the more that you head back into the past. Now people are going to universities and colleges where they meet and marry people from other continents. A generation ago, men and women rarely mated with anyone from a different town or city. Hence, the blending of our genes which will soon produce a uniformly brown-skinned population. Apart from that, there will be little change in the species.
However, such arguments affect only the Western world - where food, hygiene and medical advances are keeping virtually every member of society alive and able to pass on their genes. In the developing world, no such protection exists.
'Just consider Aids, and then look at chimpanzees,' says Jones. 'You find they all carry a version of HIV but are unaffected by it.
'But a few thousand years ago, when the first chimps became infected, things would have been very different. Millions of chimps probably died as the virus spread through them, and only a small number, which possessed genes that conferred immunity, survived to become the ancestors of all chimps today.
'Something very similar could soon happen to humans. In a thousand years, Africa will be populated only by the descendants of those few individuals who are currently immune to the Aids virus. They will carry the virus but will be unaffected by it. So yes, there will be change there all right - but only where the forces of evolution are not being suppressed.'
However, other scientists believe evolutionary pressures are still taking their toll on humanity, despite the protection afforded by Western life. For example, the biologist Christopher Wills, of the University of California, San Diego, argues that ideas are now driving our evolution. 'There is a premium on sharpness of mind and the ability to accumulate money. Such people tend to have more children and have a better chance of survival,' he says. In other words, intellect - the defining characteristic of our species - is still driving our evolution.
This view is countered by Peter Ward, of the University of Washington in Seattle. In his book, Future Evolution, recently published in the US by Henry Holt, Ward also argues that modern Western life protects people from the effects of evolution. 'I don't think we are going to see any changes - apart from ones we deliberately introduce ourselves, when we start to bio-engineer people, by introducing genes into their bodies, so they live longer or are stronger and healthier.'
If people start to live to 150, and are capable of producing children for more than 100 of those years, the effects could be dramatic, he says. 'People will start to produce dozens of children in their lifetimes, and that will certainly start to skew our evolution. These people will also have more chance to accumulate wealth as well. So we will have created a new race of fecund, productive individuals and that could have dramatic consequences.
'However, that will only come about when we directly intervene in our own evolution, using cloning and gene therapy. Without that, nothing will happen.'
Stringer disagrees, however. 'Evolution goes on all the time. You don't have to intervene. It is just that it is highly unpredictable. For example, brain size has decreased over the past 10,000 years. A similar reduction has also affected our physiques. We are punier and smaller-brained compared with our ancestors only a few millennia ago. So even though we might be influenced by evolution, that does not automatically mean an improvement in our lot.'
(Sorry, I haven't learned to use the link function.
You insinuated there are transitional fossils everywhere. Here's a quote.
"The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."
STEPHEN JAY GOULD.
Guess he's a nobody also?
Be back with more before concluding this discussion on evolution.
I asked nicely, after stating many times I wasn't interested in pursuing a discussion on Evolution earlier, to allow for me to have time to respond.
As this doesn't interest anyone, then this needs to be redirected to the thread specifically devoted to the Evolution debate.
It serves no purpose to inundate me with more than I can respond to, nor does it validate your assertions utilizing a virtual shout down.
You utilized much commentary without much proof, what you described as a "creationist tactic." What I presented was information as presented to me. Your insinuation was that I was manufacturing this info. The above article is one, you can check to verify yourself. I'm seeking to locate others.
Of course, at the time I read the various news articles I had no idea I'd ever need to submit them as proof for anything, or that I'd have someone challenging me as to my veracity. If you can't accept that, then you need to remove yourself elsewhere and refrain from wasting your time on someone you believe to be without integrity.
-----signature-----
"I once wanted to become an atheist but I gave up . . . they have no holidays. "
I AM AN ACT OF GOD. If you doubt it ask my insurance agent.
Whom the Mod's would destroy they first drive mad.
|
Locked Topic |
Active Topic Notification |
Private Message |
Post History
|
 |
|