Evolution True or False?

[Tom]

you are probably both right that there are problems with carbon dating.

But i dont think that any serious sceintist disputes the age of the earth down to more than a couple of hundred million years nor that carbon dating is reasonably accurate.

futher more carbondating is not the only way of determining the age of something.

finnaly the fossil evidence is hugh.



Life Form Millions of Years Since
First Known Appearance


Microbial (procaryotic cells) 3,500
Complex (eucaryotic cells) 2,000
First multicellular animals 670
Shell-bearing animals 540
Vertebrates (simple fishes) 490
Amphibians 350
Reptiles 310
Mammals 200
Nonhuman primates 60
Earliest apes 25
Australopithecine ancestors of humans 4
Modern humans 0 .15 (150,000 years)

The fossil record thus provides consistent evidence of systematic change through time--of descent with modification. From this huge body of evidence, it can be predicted that no reversals will be found in future paleontological studies. That is, amphibians will not appear before fishes, nor mammals before reptiles, and no complex life will occur in the geological record before the oldest eucaryotic cells. This prediction has been upheld by the evidence that has accumulated until now: no reversals have been found. (cut/paste)

go to the to of the himalyas and you will find fossils. all theese fosils lie in dateble layers and the is a steady progression in complexity the high in the leyers you go - the closer to our own time you come.

Scientists have unearthed thousands of fossil specimens representing members of the human family. A great number of these cannot be assigned to the modern human species, Homo sapiens. Most of these specimens have been well dated, often by means of radiometric techniques. They reveal a well-branched tree, parts of which trace a general evolutionary sequence leading from ape-like forms to modern humans. (cut/paste)

ohh and a common misconception is that we evolved from the abes. this is not so, we share a common ancestor with the abes who themselfs have evolved.

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by EMINEM:
<STRONG>
Billions upon billions of years is plenty of time. Where then are the transitionary fossils that exhibit the changes caused by genetic mutations and natural selection? If your assertion is true, wouldn't the archaeological evidence be more overwhelming than it is?

RE: Carbon dating. I'm no expert, but this site (I think) does a good job in explaining the limitations and shortcomings of radio carbon dating:

[url="http://www.cs.unc.edu/~plaisted/ce/dating.html#Carbon"]Click here[/url]

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: EMINEM ]</STRONG>

MM, please read my post on page 1, where I go through the question of transitional fossiles. Also please not that C-14 dating is not used on fossiles, since it only works for things younger than about 30000 years. Instead, the much more reliable uranium/lead dating method is used for fossiles as for dating of the earth, together with several other methods like ice cores, etc. I can post more on this later, I'm at work right now.

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>

... the idea that there must be a "missing links" between two species (for instance chimps and humans) in order to have common ancestors, is a misconception. There is no such thing a s a single "missing link" or transitional fossile between species, the transitions are slow, and therefore many transitional states lie between two species. Let's look at the primate evolution as an example. Chimps and homo sapiens are two species with a common ancestor, from where several lineages developed. One line resulted in chimps, another line resulted in humans. The route from this common ancestor to today took about 6 million years and many transitional forms of which fossiles are found. Now, links between species are not established by fossil findings only, nowadays molecular data is used to confirm that morhological similarity also reflect genetic similarity, and molecular data support the fossile findings for primate evolution.

Hope my post has helped the discussion </STRONG>

Okay, I read your post (twice) and have a few more questions to ask. Are you saying that transitional fossil evidences are not necessary in proving that evolution has ocurred? If there are indeed "many transitional states," between species (how many exactly?), how come so little evidence have been discovered in relation to the allotted time frame of six million years?

For that matter, how does evolution, genetic mutation, natural selection, etc etc. account for such complicated organs like the eye, the brain, or the heart? How does chance produce complexity?

[ 08-31-2001: Message edited by: EMINEM ]

[C Elegans]

Originally posted by EMINEM:
<STRONG>Elegans, I wouldn't know a "young earth creationist" if I saw one. I haven't a clue how old the Earth is. I merely hold to the belief that man is the creation of an intelligent designer, and did not come about by chance genetic mutation, natural selection, or what have you.

Hope that helps. </STRONG>

It did help, MM Maybe you're not at all what I mean with "young earth" creationist, then, I just got that impression when you stated so firmly that evolution is a lie.

Young earthers are the people who interpret the bible's desription of the creation in a totally literal way, and thus draw the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old. This is, like Gwally posted earlier, a conclusion based on an 19th century theologist who counted the generations in OT backwards.

Now, to believe that god created life of earth, does not necessarily contradict evolution at all. Many christians I know (among them scientists in the life sciences) simply view evolution as the means or the method, god used for creating man, as well as the view big bang cosmology as describing the way god created the universe.

So, MM, do clarify your view:
1. Do you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
2. Do you belive in the abiogenesis? (ie how life began on earth, starting with anaerobic bacteria.
3. Do you believe in common ancestors for other species than man? (for instance, how about chimps and gorillas, between dogs and wolves, between wolves and whales)
4. Do you believe in a literal or a symbolic interpretation of the Noah's arch and the flood event?

I ask these question simply to understand better exactly what about evolution you don't believe in, and if there is something else regarding the scientific description of the history of earth that you don't believe in.

Also, a very central misunderstanding: evolution is not saying we're here by chance, and is not working by chance.
The chance element is that mutations and some other genetic variations can happen by chance. But selection then acts upon this variation, and selection is the very opposite of chance.

I'll post more on the transitial fossiles/molecular data/evolution of complex organs later, but that something is complex is not evidence against evolution - the accumulated changes over 3.4 billion years are enough to create complex organs many times over. The eye has evolved 40 different times, and even today, there are 8 different basic structures of eyes.

EDITED for inability to write a proper opening sentence. *sigh* I wish English was my 1st language...

[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]

[EMINEM]

1. No one knows for sure how old the Earth is, myself included.

2. No, I don't believe life began in the form of anaerobic bacteria in some obscure primordial cesspool, because scientists haven't been able to adequately explain, much less prove, HOW life began, WHERE life began, and WHEN life began. It just began! No, I may not be a biologist, but I'm smart enough to understand that life cannot spring from non-life. I also think that a paramecium in the year 2001 will still be a paramecium 2 billion years later. It will not evolve by chance genetic mutations (which are invariably more fatal than benign) into a living, breathing, thinking human being no matter how much time (the magic factor in this equation) you want to give it.

3. No.

4. Yes. There is evidence to support the theory of a universal flood. Give me a moment to find the URL...


GO! DUBYA GO!

[fable]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>It did help, MM Maybe you're not at all what I mean with "young earth" creationist, then, I just got that impression when you stated so firmly that evolution is a lie.

Young earthers are the people who interpret the bible's desription of the creation in a totally literal way, and thus draw the conclusion that the earth is 6000 years old. This is, like Gwally posted earlier, a conclusion based on an 19th century theologist who counted the generations in OT backwards.

Now, to believe that god created life of earth, does not necessarily contradict evolution at all. Many christians I know (among them scientists in the life sciences) simply view evolution as the means or the method, god used for creating man, as well as the view big bang cosmology as describing the way god created the universe.

So, MM, do clarify your view:
1. Do you believe the earth is 4.5 billion years old?
2. Do you belive in the abiogenesis? (ie how life began on earth, starting with anaerobic bacteria.
3. Do you believe in common ancestors for other species than man? (for instance, how about chimps and gorillas, between dogs and wolves, between wolves and whales)
4. Do you believe in a literal or a symbolic interpretation of the Noah's arch and the flood event?

I ask these question simply to understand better exactly what about evolution you don't believe in, and if there is something else regarding the scientific description of the history of earth that you don't believe in.

Also, a very central misunderstanding: evolution is not saying we're here by chance, and is not working by chance.
The chance element is that mutations and some other genetic variations can happen by chance. But selection then acts upon this variation, and selection is the very opposite of chance.

I'll post more on the transitial fossiles/molecular data/evolution of complex organs later, but that something is complex is not evidence against evolution - the accumulated changes over 3.4 billion years are enough to create complex organs many times over. The eye has evolved 40 different times, and even today, there are 8 different basic structures of eyes.

EDITED for inability to write a proper opening sentence. *sigh* I wish English was my 1st language...

[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: C Elegans ]</STRONG>

Your command of English is rich in detail and exactly suited to your intent, @CE. Many English writers should only have that amount of skill.

I am also interested in Eminem's responses to your questions. Typically, he posts very brief, rather militant attacks, then responds after being questioned seriously with lengthy caution and backtracking. Like you, I felt his first, flip remarks about evolution were the response of a "young world" creationist. I still do, because he hasn't urged any opinions that contradict either his initial statement, or those impressions. But given time, if the topic keeps its focus, he still may.

[EMINEM]

Really, fable, I think you can turn your prodigious talents into better pursuits than attacking me from thread to thread. If I've offended you in any way, I sincerely apologize. It was never intentional.

GO! DUBYA GO!

[C Elegans]

Thanks for you replies, MM, that gives me a much clearer picture of what it is you actually despute and not. Still, a few questions about the arch event:
1. Do you belive that all now living species has sprung from the couples Noah brought on the arch in their present shape, or has evolution affected the species after the flood?
2. Do you believe extinct species, like trilobites or dinosaurs, were carried on the arch and became extinct afterwards, or do you belive the extinct species went extinct because they were not carried on the arch? Or do believe that trilobites and dinosaurs have never existed?

Excuse me for all the questions, but as I said, you are the first creationist I've ever discussed this topic with (together with Sleepy, the first I've ever "met".)

[EMINEM]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>Thanks for you replies, MM, that gives me a much clearer picture of what it is you actually despute and not. Still, a few questions about the arch event:
1. Do you belive that all now living species has sprung from the couples Noah brought on the arch in their present shape, or has evolution affected the species after the flood?
2. Do you believe extinct species, like trilobites or dinosaurs, were carried on the arch and became extinct afterwards, or do you belive the extinct species went extinct because they were not carried on the arch? Or do believe that trilobites and dinosaurs have never existed?

Excuse me for all the questions, but as I said, you are the first creationist I've ever discussed this topic with (together with Sleepy, the first I've ever "met".)</STRONG>

Hey, you can't respond to a question with a question!




Honestly, Elegans, for now "I don't know" is my best answer to both your above queries. I am not familiar with the scientific literature in either the Evolutionist or Creationist perspective, nor have I developed any opinions concerning the origin of man except the ones I have stated previously.

[fable]

Originally posted by EMINEM:
<STRONG>Hey, you can't respond to a question with a question!



Honestly, Elegans, for now "I don't know" is my best answer to both your above queries. I am not familiar with the scientific literature in either the Evolutionist or Creationist perspective, nor have I developed any opinions concerning the origin of man except the ones I have stated previously.</STRONG>

You know, this would ring a lot more sincerely if you haven't first posted the following, in this same topic:

I can't decide whether to call it a Lie or a Religion. Which term is stronger? Probably the former. In that case, let me state my opinion thus -
Evolution is a lie. Period.

Now either your original, hardshell opinion is an accurate statement of your views--and it does indicate you've clearly thought out the issue, and drawn some decisive conclusions--or you haven't studied the issue much, and don't have opinions on it, as you've stated in your last post.

....Or, you have a habit of stating your honest, fundamentalist opinions, discovering that you're not in the majority on a forum of people who can post proofs against you, and backtrack swiftly with "friendly" disclaimers as protective coloration.

I previously had you pegged for Option #2, a person with an interesting viewpoint who was open to discussion, but after repeatedly seeing this kind of position shifting and change of topic and/or mood when the going gets tough, I'm inclined more to Option #3. Too bad, but it's your choice.

[C Elegans]

@Eminem: Easy I have a lot of other things to attend to also, but I'll post about transitional fossiles, genetic and molecular data and evolution of complex organs, as soon as I've time to prepare and good and clear post. All of the above topics, especially 2 and 3 are rather heavy and technical stuff. The reason I asked so many questions first, is simply that I wanted to have a better understanding of your viewpoints so I don't spend a lot of time compiling data about the the dating of fossiles, and then it turnes out you believe in the age of fossiles so my effort was totally unnecessary.

But the points I will address are:

1. The abiogenesis - how life began on earth
2. Speciation - how one species can evolve to another species
3. The molecular data that strongly support evolution and also are consistent with fossil findings
4. More details about transitional fossiles
5. The primate/hominoid evolution
6. The evolution of complex organs

Anything else, MM? Please feel free to add to my list if there are other question you'd like to hear my explanation of.

@Fable: Thanks for the compliment I just wish my English was better because I'm not always sure how clear my posts really come out. I'm good at writing scientific papers, but writing about scentific topics in a non technical language is another story...I'm very good at it in Swedish, but I find it much more difficult in English

I really hope your swaying towards alt #3 will prove not to hold true.

Also, I of course expect MM to continue both on my and Tom's moral questions in the old "Eminem" thread, and to the discussion about the connection (or lack thereof) between christianity and the US constitution. He wrote he would do this when he had more time. In fact, I will bump it and add some clarification to my own posts, since there was a misunderstanding of terminology in my post about moral.

[EMINEM]

There. Post deleted.

[ 09-03-2001: Message edited by: EMINEM ]

[C Elegans]

@MM: Fable is critical to your debate style and strategies. I understand if you don't agree and wish to defend yourself, but please don't post disrespectful comments like the last part of your fist sentence. Please edit your post, MM, even if you feel upset right now.

[Mr Sleep]

Would you all please keep this debate civil.

If anyone has a gripe with another member then take it to Private Message.

[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com/sitefeatures/forumrules.php"]Forum Rules[/url]

[url="http://www.gamebanshee.com"]Gamebanshee[/url] - Make your gaming Scream

[T'lainya]

Hmm Mr Sleep beat me to it
Everyone please respect each other. I realize many of you have strong feelings on this subject, and the debates can be a bit heated, but please try to be civil.
A little tactfullness goes a long way.
edited due to Sleeps quick response

[ 09-01-2001: Message edited by: T'lainya ]

[fable]

Quite so: Thank you, @Sleep. I feel that in a forum like this, if someone takes a strong position, it helps for them to defend it. When they suddenly change subjects or say their position is something else entirely, it prevents discussion from having any meaning.

@Eminem, you can hold any opinion you want, or several opinions on the same subject, if you wish. I don't hold it personally against you. But you can't expect that sort of thing to go unnoticed or remarked upon in civil conversation, when anybody can look up what you've written here in the past.

Speaking of the past, I recall telling people to please stop flaming you in several posts, where they were angry because of your stated views. (Not unlike the flames you just threw at me, in fact.) I can look 'em up and post 'em, too, if you'd like.

[Gwalchmai]

Originally posted by C Elegans:
<STRONG>What do you think about the theory of punctuated equilibrium? I understand there are some controversies, not in description (I think) but in interpretation?</STRONG>

@C. Elegans:

As luck would have it, I actually attended a lecture by Stephen Jay Gould over a decade ago, back when he was studying the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies. I have no idea what he may be doing these days. Unfortunately, I haven’t studied evolutionary theory for a long time, so most of my dimly recollected memories are sorely out of date. However, I sort of have the feeling that the controversies surrounding Punctuated Equilibrium have become relatively moot. I have asked my wife (who is the Physical Anthropologist of the family) and she recalls the same. Punctuated Equilibrium was put forth in the early 1970s as a sort of antithesis to Phyletic Gradualism, which is the name for the type of evolution that Darwin described. In Gradualism, a species slowly changes through time, becoming different enough to be considered a new species. This works best with relatively small populations. Punctuated Equilibrium was proposed partially to help answer the perplexing problem of apparent gaps in the fossil record. A species would go through periods of stability, with little change (lasting on the order of two million years), then environmental and other factors would cause a shorter period of rabid change (ca. 50,000 years). With the vagaries of preservation taken into account, the fossil record could easily be missing for the transitional skeletons from the period of rapid change. Speciation (where one species splits into two or more species, all of which continue to exist at the same time) was a big part of Punctuated Equilibrium.

My impression is that the ‘controversy’ surrounding Punctuated Equilibrium is not so controversial. Its no longer an either-or proposition. There are many mechanisms by which new species may come into being, such as the founder effect, drift, or bottlenecking. Speciation certainly occurs, such as with the several species of Australopethecines that existed simultaneously. Gradualism, to me, smacks too much of directionality, as if a species had a goal in mind. This harkens back to the hierarchical views of evolution, which placed humans (specifically Caucasian humans) on top, which is patently wrong. This type of Gradualism is perpetuated in the cliché-ridden image of human evolution that depicts an ape, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Neanderthal, and a modern Human (invariably a bearded white guy holding a spear) all in a line, showing the ‘progression’ of humans from apes. Again this is patently wrong. However, to me, Punctuated Equilibrium isn’t really a mechanism of evolution, but really only addresses how evolution is perceived. Sort of like the phenotype or outward expression of a complicated, underlying genotype.

I would be very much interested in any more recent information on Punctuated Equilibrium, especially if the controversy is still going on. I will do my best to hold my own in this discussion of evolution, but it has been a long time since I took those courses.

[Azeroth]

Harry

[Azeroth]

Back

[Azeroth]

And