View Full Version : Skulls add to "origin" theory
http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=DA5114C2-E7F2-99DF-30BBDDD4415DED90
Skulls Add to "Out of Africa" Theory of Human Origins
Pattern of skull variation bolsters the case that humans took over from earlier species
The shapes of skulls from around the world may have opened a new window onto the exodus of the first humans from Africa. According to a new report, groups of skulls from local populations are less diverse the farther those populations settled from the ancestral continent.
The result supports the popular scientific theory that modern humans swept "out of Africa" some 50,000 years ago and supplanted earlier species such as Neandertals. It may also help researchers better pinpoint where in Africa modern humans came from and how messy the exodus could have been, says evolutionary geneticist William Amos of the University of Cambridge in England.
Amos, Cambridge evolutionary biologist Andrea Manica and their colleagues analyzed shape data from 4,666 male skulls, all less than 2,000 years old, collected from 105 places around the world. For each location, they compared the variation in 37 different measurements with the distance the population's ancestors would have had to travel to get there from Africa. (Cairo and New York City appear relatively close on a map, but early humans would have had to hoof it across Asia and the Bering Strait to reach North America from Africa.)
As smaller bands broke off from larger settlements, they would have carried with them a less diverse subset of the bigger group's genes, which partly translate into anatomical features such as skull shape. So the farther early Homo sapiens trod from their homeland, the less variable their skulls should become. Unless, that is, they bred with previously established populations of Neandertal or other early humans, which would have injected new genes and boosted variability.
The researchers found no signs of interbreeding, they report online today in Nature. "What you find is a very nice linear decline of variability as you move farther away from Africa," Amos says. Prior studies had identified an identical trend in the diversity of simple genetic sequences or markers.
"The beauty of the skulls," Amos says, "is there are so many of them and they come from populations that are not very well represented genetically," such as aboriginal Americans and Australians. He notes that additional skulls from African populations could help map early human migrations from or to Ethiopia, where the oldest known human remains originate.
Physical anthropologist Erik Trinkaus of Washington University in St. Louis says few experts doubt the out-of-Africa scenario in broad terms. "The issue is how much modern humans spreading out of Africa after 50,000 years ago interbred with regional groups of archaic humans, where and when"—something we may never know, he says. The new study, he contends, only "reinforce[s] the idea of a special isolation of modern humanity from anything less 'pure.'"
Amos says that even very limited interbreeding would have disrupted the skull trend if the offspring had survived and propagated—although the extent of that limit has yet to be worked out. The big unknown, he says, is the messiness of the African exodus, including its timing among different groups. Mathematical models of migration could shed light on that problem, he says, adding that the skull data "open up lots of nice testable hypotheses."
Ed Who?
07-18-2007, 09:45 PM
Wonder who produces their casting molds?
Wonder who produces their casting molds?
An old bitch named "Nature".
Wonder who produces their casting molds?
What does this mean?
Hotpapa666
07-19-2007, 10:22 AM
What does this mean?
It's his way to be subversive, to attempt to cast doubt, without having any evidence to do so. A trick he likes to use.
It's his way to be subversive, to attempt to cast doubt, without having any evidence to do so. A trick he likes to use.
I see. I think as a rule, that you need to be able to have some sort of proof for me to be able to buy it at all. I see that we can be very difficult to get along with as we have very different ideas of what proof is (see Bible is all the proof I need). However, that just doesn't fly with me and I think this is a perfect example of that sort of crap right here.
Are you really fucking saying that someone made these skulls to somehow cast doubt on the one true God? In the face of all the other evidence?
Vegas
07-19-2007, 11:29 AM
I see. I think as a rule, that you need to be able to have some sort of proof for me to be able to buy it at all. I see that we can be very difficult to get along with as we have very different ideas of what proof is (see Bible is all the proof I need). However, that just doesn't fly with me and I think this is a perfect example of that sort of crap right here.
Are you really fucking saying that someone made these skulls to somehow cast doubt on the one true God? In the face of all the other evidence?
Please understand that there have been announcements made in the past with great fanfare regarding fossil finds that turned out to be outright hoaxes.
You keep throwing out that you don't believe creation is science and now you're talking about "all the other evidence." What is "all the other evidence" that you're talking about. The reality is that nobody has proven evolution at all. Please tell me what convinced you and provide some specifics.
Hotpapa666
07-19-2007, 11:38 AM
Please understand that there have been announcements made in the past with great fanfare regarding fossil finds that turned out to be outright hoaxes.
You keep throwing out that you don't believe creation is science and now you're talking about "all the other evidence." What is "all the other evidence" that you're talking about. The reality is that nobody has proven evolution at all. Please tell me what convinced you and provide some specifics.
So, because, Piltdown man, which was discovered as hoax (by scientists, not the church) rather quickly, was a hoax (perpetrated by profiteers not scientists) all fossil finds should be viewed as hoaxes until proven otherwise?
Vegas
07-19-2007, 11:41 AM
So, because, Piltdown man, which was discovered as hoax (by scientists, not the church) rather quickly, was a hoax (perpetrated by profiteers not scientists) all fossil finds should be viewed as hoaxes until proven otherwise?
There's also the famous peppered moth deal as well as the Archaeopteryx which are both taught as "science" and still used as "proof" of evolution.
Please understand that there have been announcements made in the past with great fanfare regarding fossil finds that turned out to be outright hoaxes.
You keep throwing out that you don't believe creation is science and now you're talking about "all the other evidence." What is "all the other evidence" that you're talking about. The reality is that nobody has proven evolution at all. Please tell me what convinced you and provide some specifics.
"The reality is that nobody has proven evolution at all." Asking me to list the mountain of evidence for evolution only gives credence to creationism. It is the only science we have when it comes to teh creation of man. That is all.
A project from Cal-Berkeley
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Hitch your wagon to Duane Gish if you want, you are not doing yourself any favors. This si not up for discussion anymore among scientists or anyone who has studied the issue. The burden of proof is not on me to prove evolution to you. The burden of proof is now on teh guy that says the earth is 6000 years old, and you have never done it. You have never come up with anything to porve that stuff man. C'mon now. You cannot possibly say that i need to prove evolution to you or you are believing something with no proof. Some people believe that, i think you are too intelligent for that.
There's also the famous peppered moth deal as well as the Archaeopteryx which are both taught as "science" and still used as "proof" of evolution.
They are not taught as science! They are put up as a straw man by people who deny fact and truth! Stop with this crap and do something besides try and poke holes in the other side.
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 11:48 AM
There's also the famous peppered moth deal as well as the Archaeopteryx which are both taught as "science" and still used as "proof" of evolution.
I just find it interesting that people can call a book old rubbish that has no meaning, but then can rather easily sculpt out an entire history as fact with a rather, shall I say, miniscule amount of real evidence.
It's funny that the evolution proporters always try to talk that "middle ground" where Creation and evolution coexist, yet are always the first to start making statements that obviously are intended to say, "Take this, you wacko myth believers."
I just find it interesting that people can call a book old rubbish that has no meaning, but then can rather easily sculpt out an entire history as fact with a rather, shall I say, miniscule amount of real evidence.
It's funny that the evolution proporters always try to talk that "middle ground" where Creation and evolution coexist, yet are always the first to start making statements that obviously are intended to say, "Take this, you wacko myth believers."
Seriously? This was faked? Fuckin prove it. This is so stupid to even discuss.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 11:52 AM
"The reality is that nobody has proven evolution at all." Asking me to list the mountain of evidence for evolution only gives credence to creationism. It is the only science we have when it comes to teh creation of man. That is all.
A project from Cal-Berkeley
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
Hitch your wagon to Duane Gish if you want, you are not doing yourself any favors. This si not up for discussion anymore among scientists or anyone who has studied the issue. The burden of proof is not on me to prove evolution to you. The burden of proof is now on teh guy that says the earth is 6000 years old, and you have never done it. You have never come up with anything to porve that stuff man. C'mon now. You cannot possibly say that i need to prove evolution to you or you are believing something with no proof. Some people believe that, i think you are too intelligent for that.
So you admit that evolution is not proven, but you continue to put down anyone who believes the other side. The burden of proof is entirely on the creation side? Interesting.
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 11:58 AM
That's alright, the article's a bunch of shit as far as I'm concerned anyway.
First of all, halfway through the article, the dude says that there are a veritable smorgasbord of different skulls available.
Then they take 4666 (a great round number mind you) from 105 locations (another awesomely arbitrary figure).
I'd like to know how they statistically boiled down all of these millions of skulls. For me, it seems about as random as going into 100 urban areas, taking a political poll, and then calling them countrywide sentiments.
There's also the famous peppered moth deal as well as the Archaeopteryx which are both taught as "science" and still used as "proof" of evolution.
You've got to be kidding me.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 12:02 PM
You've got to be kidding me.
Not even.
That's alright, the article's a bunch of shit as far as I'm concerned anyway.
First of all, halfway through the article, the dude says that there are a veritable smorgasbord of different skulls available.
Then they take 4666 (a great round number mind you) from 105 locations (another awesomely arbitrary figure).
I'd like to know how they statistically boiled down all of these millions of skulls. For me, it seems about as random as going into 100 urban areas, taking a political poll, and then calling them countrywide sentiments.
Find the primary literature. In "science" publications, there's always a materials and methods section to describe just the things you ask about. That is, if you really cared to pursue "the other side" to better understand what they're saying. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it, but I've seen you and others talk about evolution and in the context described, it's completely wrong.
So how can you argue against something when the context you discuss it is wrong in the first place? If you don't understand it, how can you rail against it? Boiling it down to simple terms and quick ideas is not representative of what it really is.
Not even.
Alright. Whatever.
RE: peppered moth.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
Vegas
07-19-2007, 12:16 PM
RE: peppered moth.
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/Moths/moths.html
So what was demonstrated is a back & forth between gene frequencies within a type. It doesn't show anything about what would happen given millions of years as far as increased complexity.
But it's still questionable to glue some moths onto a place where they normally don't go and prove adaptation, is it not?
So what was demonstrated is a back & forth between gene frequencies within a type. It doesn't show anything about what would happen given millions of years as far as increased complexity.
But it's still questionable to glue some moths onto a place where they normally don't go and prove adaptation, is it not?
Yes. And that's part of the theory. So even though it may seem like "common sense", it's still part of it. And had the idea of evolution not come about for a basis of biology, would gene frequencies even be looked at? Maybe, maybe not, but evolution is built on gene frequencies...not everything that supports part of evolution is used to say that dirt became man...it's just part of the supporting data for such a thought.
As for the second question, at the time of the information, the idea was that that was the underlying reason. So to show the contrast, they put a white one on a dark background and vice versa. Unless they claimed it was a natural situation, to me it's no big deal. It's a visual aid. Now, if they're underlying assumptions about "cause" were wrong, then they're wrong. And science was used to figure that out. Knowledge evolves.
Regardless of how you and others try to portray scientific knowledge, it's really not a static thing...it changes (sometimes greatly, sometimes subtly) as new information becomes available.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 12:28 PM
Yes. And that's part of the theory. So even though it may seem like "common sense", it's still part of it. And had the idea of evolution not come about for a basis of biology, would gene frequencies even be looked at? Maybe, maybe not, but evolution is built on gene frequencies...not everything that supports part of evolution is used to say that dirt became man...it's just part of the supporting data for such a thought.
As for the second question, at the time of the information, the idea was that that was the underlying reason. So to show the contrast, they put a white one on a dark background and vice versa. Unless they claimed it was a natural situation, to me it's no big deal. It's a visual aid. Now, if they're underlying assumptions about "cause" were wrong, then they're wrong. And science was used to figure that out. Knowledge evolves.
Regardless of how you and others try to portray scientific knowledge, it's really not a static thing...it changes (sometimes greatly, sometimes subtly) as new information becomes available.
How do I portray scientific knowledge as static?
How do I portray scientific knowledge as static?
Base everything on what is known now and if there's no answer to it now, there won't be an answer to it.
Point to instances in the past where a particular science was going in the wrong direction, using it as an example of if they didn't know what's going on then, why should we expect them to know now.
Talking about things as if what is described in science is the empirical knowledge about the subject.
Point to particular "discoveries" that were later proven to be false, many times by the scientists and their theories that the false discoveries would most likely support.
Mainly, you do it to make the argument easier for yourself. Questions like "If it's true, why isn't (insert subject here) explained?"
Or, "Since this topic was debunked, the whole science is bunk." Even when the topic isn't completely debunked, as in this situation.
All things are built to put science on a much higher pedestal than it really is, so that it's easier to knock down. Evolution is a theory. It is a theory supported by much more evidence than you care to admit. It is the leading theory in biology in regards to origins of life, speciation, and diversity. It gets tweaked. What's written about evolution today could change tomorrow. But the underlying theory has NOT been knocked down yet. Pieces of supporting evidence from the past...sure. But the overall idea is still holding strong. But when you (and/or others) make statements exaggerating what the science is or has said, it's easier to put doubt in the minds of others. The moths is a perfect example. You say moths have been used to prove evolution, but since they were really glued on a tree, it's all a farce. First off, the basis of the argument is wrong. The moths were not used to "prove" evolution, they are an example of how gene frequencies in a population change. Which is part of the theory of evolution. In order to base evolution on changes in gene frequency, you have to be able to show different frequencies in genes...which is what the moths were used for...so, you've overstated the "value" of the moths to the theory, so that when it comes out that the moths were glued on a tree, it sounds oh so made up, and therefore, evolution is oh so made up. Except...the fact that they were glued onto trees does NOT disprove that the coloring is from changes in gene frequencies. And since that is the connection to evolution, nothing has really changed. Gene frequencies are different regardless of whether or not the moth is flying or glued to a tree. But in the argument you make, you set it up in a manner that is not representative of how it's actually being used.
Am I mistaken?
So you admit that evolution is not proven, but you continue to put down anyone who believes the other side. The burden of proof is entirely on the creation side? Interesting.
Just give me any proof. Any.
That's alright, the article's a bunch of shit as far as I'm concerned anyway.
First of all, halfway through the article, the dude says that there are a veritable smorgasbord of different skulls available.
Then they take 4666 (a great round number mind you) from 105 locations (another awesomely arbitrary figure).
I'd like to know how they statistically boiled down all of these millions of skulls. For me, it seems about as random as going into 100 urban areas, taking a political poll, and then calling them countrywide sentiments.
What is the motive behind those that fake all this science? To destroy Christianity? Why? Are you frickin' serious man?
Vegas
07-19-2007, 12:51 PM
Base everything on what is known now and if there's no answer to it now, there won't be an answer to it.
Point to instances in the past where a particular science was going in the wrong direction, using it as an example of if they didn't know what's going on then, why should we expect them to know now.
Talking about things as if what is described in science is the empirical knowledge about the subject.
Point to particular "discoveries" that were later proven to be false, many times by the scientists and their theories that the false discoveries would most likely support.
Mainly, you do it to make the argument easier for yourself. Questions like "If it's true, why isn't (insert subject here) explained?"
Or, "Since this topic was debunked, the whole science is bunk." Even when the topic isn't completely debunked, as in this situation.
All things are built to put science on a much higher pedestal than it really is, so that it's easier to knock down. Evolution is a theory. It is a theory supported by much more evidence than you care to admit. It is the leading theory in biology in regards to origins of life, speciation, and diversity. It gets tweaked. What's written about evolution today could change tomorrow. But the underlying theory has NOT been knocked down yet. Pieces of supporting evidence from the past...sure. But the overall idea is still holding strong. But when you (and/or others) make statements exaggerating what the science is or has said, it's easier to put doubt in the minds of others. The moths is a perfect example. You say moths have been used to prove evolution, but since they were really glued on a tree, it's all a farce. First off, the basis of the argument is wrong. The moths were not used to "prove" evolution, they are an example of how gene frequencies in a population change. Which is part of the theory of evolution. In order to base evolution on changes in gene frequency, you have to be able to show different frequencies in genes...which is what the moths were used for...so, you've overstated the "value" of the moths to the theory, so that when it comes out that the moths were glued on a tree, it sounds oh so made up, and therefore, evolution is oh so made up. Except...the fact that they were glued onto trees does NOT disprove that the coloring is from changes in gene frequencies. And since that is the connection to evolution, nothing has really changed. Gene frequencies are different regardless of whether or not the moth is flying or glued to a tree. But in the argument you make, you set it up in a manner that is not representative of how it's actually being used.
Am I mistaken?
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I am not at all anti-science or anti-research. I have spent most of my life in the technical world and have probably read more technical books than 99% of the people in the world.
I have said more than once that disproving evolution does not prove creation. There are severe scientific problems with evolution.
Let's look at the Cambrian explosion. In the Cambrian geological strata there is a great outburst of fossils of animals on a highly developed level of complexity. Every one of the major invertebrate forms of life are found in the Cambrian, but the evolutionary predecessors of the Cambrian fauna have never been found. That is one of the strongest evidences for creation that there is.
The pre-Cambrian rocks are very suitable for fossilization, but none exist. That's not a small problem for evolution.
Base everything on what is known now and if there's no answer to it now, there won't be an answer to it.
Point to instances in the past where a particular science was going in the wrong direction, using it as an example of if they didn't know what's going on then, why should we expect them to know now.
Talking about things as if what is described in science is the empirical knowledge about the subject.
Point to particular "discoveries" that were later proven to be false, many times by the scientists and their theories that the false discoveries would most likely support.
Mainly, you do it to make the argument easier for yourself. Questions like "If it's true, why isn't (insert subject here) explained?"
Or, "Since this topic was debunked, the whole science is bunk." Even when the topic isn't completely debunked, as in this situation.
All things are built to put science on a much higher pedestal than it really is, so that it's easier to knock down. Evolution is a theory. It is a theory supported by much more evidence than you care to admit. It is the leading theory in biology in regards to origins of life, speciation, and diversity. It gets tweaked. What's written about evolution today could change tomorrow. But the underlying theory has NOT been knocked down yet. Pieces of supporting evidence from the past...sure. But the overall idea is still holding strong. But when you (and/or others) make statements exaggerating what the science is or has said, it's easier to put doubt in the minds of others. The moths is a perfect example. You say moths have been used to prove evolution, but since they were really glued on a tree, it's all a farce. First off, the basis of the argument is wrong. The moths were not used to "prove" evolution, they are an example of how gene frequencies in a population change. Which is part of the theory of evolution. In order to base evolution on changes in gene frequency, you have to be able to show different frequencies in genes...which is what the moths were used for...so, you've overstated the "value" of the moths to the theory, so that when it comes out that the moths were glued on a tree, it sounds oh so made up, and therefore, evolution is oh so made up. Except...the fact that they were glued onto trees does NOT disprove that the coloring is from changes in gene frequencies. And since that is the connection to evolution, nothing has really changed. Gene frequencies are different regardless of whether or not the moth is flying or glued to a tree. But in the argument you make, you set it up in a manner that is not representative of how it's actually being used.
Am I mistaken?
http://www.thiscenturysucks.com/images/strawman.jpg
Tom Joad
07-19-2007, 12:52 PM
What is the motive behind those that fake all this science? To destroy Christianity? Why? Are you frickin' serious man?
It's just Crimestop.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 12:53 PM
Just give me any proof. Any.
You keep saying over and over that creation is not science, but you say the burden or proof is entirely with me. Why is that?
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I am not at all anti-science or anti-research. I have spent most of my life in the technical world and have probably read more technical books than 99% of the people in the world.
I have said more than once that disproving evolution does not prove creation. There are severe scientific problems with evolution.
Let's look at the Cambrian explosion. In the Cambrian geological strata there is a great outburst of fossils of animals on a highly developed level of complexity. Every one of the major invertebrate forms of life are found in the Cambrian, but the evolutionary predecessors of the Cambrian fauna have never been found. That is one of the strongest evidences for creation that there is.
The pre-Cambrian rocks are very suitable for fossilization, but none exist. That's not a small problem for evolution.
First off, I want to address your first comment, then I will read the rest and comment on it in another post.
After I submitted the response, I thought about changing it to more of what you've said. I AGREE fully that you are not anti-science or anti-research, and you don't try to rail against science in general. But I do believe you do these things in response to sciences you don't agree with.
My apologies for making it sound otherwise.
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I am not at all anti-science or anti-research. I have spent most of my life in the technical world and have probably read more technical books than 99% of the people in the world.
I have said more than once that disproving evolution does not prove creation. There are severe scientific problems with evolution.
Let's look at the Cambrian explosion. In the Cambrian geological strata there is a great outburst of fossils of animals on a highly developed level of complexity. Every one of the major invertebrate forms of life are found in the Cambrian, but the evolutionary predecessors of the Cambrian fauna have never been found. That is one of the strongest evidences for creation that there is.
The pre-Cambrian rocks are very suitable for fossilization, but none exist. That's not a small problem for evolution.
No, lets not look at the damn Cambrian, lets look at the theory as a whole and all the evidence that is there to support it. LSU is a biologist. I am not. I will let him argue the ins and outs. I am just a reasonably intelligent guy that uses logic and reason. I don't you guys hold onto something that is obviously not true, to the point of calling this, and all othr evidence fakes. It is crazymaking stuff to listen to.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 12:55 PM
First off, I want to address your first comment, then I will read the rest and comment on it in another post.
After I submitted the response, I thought about changing it to more of what you've said. I AGREE fully that you are not anti-science or anti-research, and you don't try to rail against science in general. But I do believe you do these things in response to sciences you don't agree with.
My apologies for making it sound otherwise.
No apology necessary.
You keep saying over and over that creation is not science, but you say the burden or proof is entirely with me. Why is that?
I just ask for any proof. Plenty of proof has already been offered here on these boards to the contrary. Just one bit.
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth. I am not at all anti-science or anti-research. I have spent most of my life in the technical world and have probably read more technical books than 99% of the people in the world.
I have said more than once that disproving evolution does not prove creation. There are severe scientific problems with evolution.
Let's look at the Cambrian explosion. In the Cambrian geological strata there is a great outburst of fossils of animals on a highly developed level of complexity. Every one of the major invertebrate forms of life are found in the Cambrian, but the evolutionary predecessors of the Cambrian fauna have never been found. That is one of the strongest evidences for creation that there is.
The pre-Cambrian rocks are very suitable for fossilization, but none exist. That's not a small problem for evolution.
I know you've said disproving evolution does not prove creation. That is not my point.
As for the Cambrian stuff, I'm not a big fossil/geology/whatever-this-is type of guy. But basing something on what's not there isn't what I'd call a concrete basis of an argument.
But that doesn't get to the point I was making with the post, which was exaggeration of what is actually being said by scientists in regards to evolution so as to make it sound completely off the wall.
I know you've said disproving evolution does not prove creation. That is not my point.
As for the Cambrian stuff, I'm not a big fossil/geology/whatever-this-is type of guy. But basing something on what's not there isn't what I'd call a concrete basis of an argument.
But that doesn't get to the point I was making with the post, which was exaggeration of what is actually being said by scientists in regards to evolution so as to make it sound completely off the wall.
Is it not off the wall, but rather the science behind how we came to be here?
What is the motive behind those that fake all this science? To destroy Christianity? Why? Are you frickin' serious man?
Destroy capitalism
Destroy Christianity
Destroy America
Win an election
Sell books
Get more funding
A fine smörgåsbord.
You keep saying over and over that creation is not science, but you say the burden or proof is entirely with me. Why is that?
Because you are trying to prove to me something that is not at all accepted in teh scientific community. I hold a view that almost if not every scientist holds. Why should I, as a layperson be responsible for proving a theory that is widely accepted by the whole field?
Tom Joad
07-19-2007, 01:02 PM
smörgåsbord.
fancy, schmancy.
Destroy capitalism
Destroy Christianity
Destroy America
Win an election
Sell books
Get more funding
A fine smörgåsbord.
You scientists and your anti-americanism.
fancy, schmancy.
It was underlined when I wrote it, so I checked the spell check to make sure it was right...that is what the spell check gave me so I ran with it.
One thing that needs to be done with this and other conversations is to stop the cattiness.
Take a stance. Support your stance. Refute the opposition.
That's all it needs.
Calling people heathens, drones, sheep, ignorant, stupid, etc...it really bogs this shit down, and it turns into just a clusterfluck.
We're all adults. We all have different viewpoints. That's that.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 01:14 PM
Because you are trying to prove to me something that is not at all accepted in teh scientific community. I hold a view that almost if not every scientist holds. Why should I, as a layperson be responsible for proving a theory that is widely accepted by the whole field?
So you are blindly putting your faith into what people are telling you, but you put down Christians who blindly put their faith into something else.
And you're greatly discounting that there are thousands of qualified scientists who believe in Creation. You're welcome to believe however you choose, but it's not necessary to throw out your insults over and over when you admit you're not technically qualified to make your own educated decision.
No, lets not look at the damn Cambrian, lets look at the theory as a whole and all the evidence that is there to support it. LSU is a biologist. I am not. I will let him argue the ins and outs. I am just a reasonably intelligent guy that uses logic and reason. I don't you guys hold onto something that is obviously not true, to the point of calling this, and all othr evidence fakes. It is crazymaking stuff to listen to.
I'm a biologist, but I'm not an evolutionary biologist. I haven't studied it much, only from articles I pick up here and there. I'm not up to date on the most recent information. I'm not the one to lean on in this argument. I know a few things about this and that. Reading up on things yourself is the only way to know if you're discussing the right points or not.
So you are blindly putting your faith into what people are telling you, but you put down Christians who blindly put their faith into something else.
And you're greatly discounting that there are thousands of qualified scientists who believe in Creation. You're welcome to believe however you choose, but it's not necessary to throw out your insults over and over when you admit you're not technically qualified to make your own educated decision.
1. I am putting my faith in logic, reason and science.
2. There are not many if any scientists in the field who don't believe in evolution.
3. Don't attack me, I am as qualified as you as far as I know to make that decision, and my decision is based on what I mentioned above.
4. Where did I insult you?
I'm a biologist, but I'm not an evolutionary biologist. I haven't studied it much, only from articles I pick up here and there. I'm not up to date on the most recent information. I'm not the one to lean on in this argument. I know a few things about this and that. Reading up on things yourself is the only way to know if you're discussing the right points or not.
I do and have read up on it, but my knowledge is based on others interpretations. I am not down with the lingo see?
And you're greatly discounting that there are thousands of qualified scientists who believe in Creation.
Ahh...but how many thousands of qualified biologists believe in Creation?
I know there are some. But from what I've read here and there, some on the forefront of Creation biology are less in the "qualified" category than the "unqualified".
But I don't know them personally, and there probably are some that believe in Creation. I find it hard to believe that, considering most of biology and what is known from biology is based in some part on the underlying ideas of evolution, but if they can swing it, good for them.
But also, let's not confuse those that are evolution skeptics with being "Creationist".
Anyway, I'll still look at the ratio...I've never met a biologist that didn't support evolution. And I've met a lot.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 01:23 PM
1. I am putting my faith in logic, reason and science.
2. There are not many if any scientists in the field who don't believe in evolution.
3. Don't attack me, I am as qualified as you as far as I know to make that decision, and my decision is based on what I mentioned above.
4. Where did I insult you?
1. You're putting your faith in the people you choose. That's your prerogative.
2. You obviously don't know how many scientists in all fields who are creationists.
3. I'm not trying to attack. If it came across that way, I offer a sincere apology.
4. You've got to be kidding me. You've made caustic post after caustic post on here.
I do and have read up on it, but my knowledge is based on others interpretations. I am not down with the lingo see?
With any science, you're relegated pretty much to reading others interpretations. Even the primary literature...it's written by someone...and you rely on their interpretations.
The trick comes in believing in the system enough that you believe they're doing their best to make good science...and in that comes the the trust.
Now, if you're reading Joe Yahoo's article on the front page of YAHOO! regarding the next big find, you're doing yourself no good. The media are goobers when it comes to science, for the most part.
I've really become a big fan of Scientific American (www.sciam.com), the articles are written for laypeople, but they still discuss current science and what's new, in all fields. Good stuff.
1. You're putting your faith in the people you choose. That's your prerogative.
2. You obviously don't know how many scientists in all fields who are creationists.
3. I'm not trying to attack. If it came across that way, I offer a sincere apology.
4. You've got to be kidding me. You've made caustic post after caustic post on here.
Point: Neither do you.
Point: Would you put much stock in a biologist criticizing the ins and outs of quantum mechanics? That is, who gives a muck about all fields? Just one should matter, when it comes to a particular field.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 01:29 PM
Point: Neither do you.
Point: Would you put much stock in a biologist criticizing the ins and outs of quantum mechanics? That is, who gives a muck about all fields? Just one should matter, when it comes to a particular field.
Richard Feynman was a physics guy. He worked in medical research for a time and did extremely well. He brought a fresh unbiased perspective and asked questions and made good contributions.
A biologist may make some fine points or ask fine questions in quantum mechanics.
1. You're putting your faith in the people you choose. That's your prerogative.
2. You obviously don't know how many scientists in all fields who are creationists.
3. I'm not trying to attack. If it came across that way, I offer a sincere apology.
4. You've got to be kidding me. You've made caustic post after caustic post on here.
My caustic points are not made to put you down, but rather to prove a point about the nature of the argument. Not an attack on you, but rather an attack on illogical points. My apologies. I get a bit fired up. I think it is ridiculous to claim that this was faked. That was what drew my ire. It is akin to saying the government committed 9/11. It is the same ridiculousness IMO, except I happen to believe this is even more out tthere.
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 01:30 PM
No, lets not look at the damn Cambrian, lets look at the theory as a whole and all the evidence that is there to support it. LSU is a biologist. I am not. I will let him argue the ins and outs. I am just a reasonably intelligent guy that uses logic and reason. I don't you guys hold onto something that is obviously not true, to the point of calling this, and all othr evidence fakes. It is crazymaking stuff to listen to.
Al Gore is a politician, yet you will go hook, line, and sinker in believing everything he has to say about this "global climate crisis."
Richard Feynman was a physics guy. He worked in medical research for a time and did extremely well. He brought a fresh unbiased perspective and asked questions and made good contributions.
A biologist may make some fine points or ask fine questions in quantum mechanics.
Asking questions does not make one well versed or qualified. I can make good points on stuff I don't know much about (I should try it sometime, eh?).
Now, if he has a good knowledge of the primary lit, what's new in the field and such, then maybe. But if he's doing all that work, I have to wonder how he's keeping his physics job.
I have no doubt that scientists can have great thoughts, ponderings, etc about another field...but that does not make them an expert of the field, just a casual observer, perhaps.
Al Gore is a politician, yet you will go hook, line, and sinker in believing everything he has to say about this "global climate crisis."
You assume that everyone that is worried about climate change is only that way because of Al Gore?
Are you only a Christian because you heard Jim Bakker give a sermon in 1983?
Al Gore is a politician, yet you will go hook, line, and sinker in believing everything he has to say about this "global climate crisis."
I do?
Vegas
07-19-2007, 01:35 PM
My caustic points are not made to put you down, but rather to prove a point about the nature of the argument. Not an attack on you, but rather an attack on illogical points. My apologies. I get a bit fired up. I think it is ridiculous to claim that this was faked. That was what drew my ire. It is akin to saying the government committed 9/11. It is the same ridiculousness IMO, except I happen to believe this is even more out tthere.
As I said earlier, there have been hoaxes put out with great fanfare. If creationists had a history of that and they showed some great "discovery" you'd probably be skeptical as well.
The latest finds may well be real, but that doesn't necessarily prove evolution. Nobody has ever shown a sequence of vertical evolution using the fossil record. That's a fact.
As I said earlier, there have been hoaxes put out with great fanfare. If creationists had a history of that and they showed some great "discovery" you'd probably be skeptical as well.
The latest finds may well be real, but that doesn't necessarily prove evolution. Nobody has ever shown a sequence of vertical evolution using the fossil record. That's a fact.
Well, when you narrow the qualifications to "fossil record" you may be correct.
But, what about fossil record, physiology, anatomy, DNA sequence, protein sequences, enzyme structure, and gene regulation all used in combination?
As I said earlier, there have been hoaxes put out with great fanfare. If creationists had a history of that and they showed some great "discovery" you'd probably be skeptical as well.
The latest finds may well be real, but that doesn't necessarily prove evolution. Nobody has ever shown a sequence of vertical evolution using the fossil record. That's a fact.
You mention the same hoax over and over. Dinosaurs lived with people? Ever hear of that?
Vegas
07-19-2007, 01:39 PM
Well, when you narrow the qualifications to "fossil record" you may be correct.
But, what about fossil record, physiology, anatomy, DNA sequence, protein sequences, enzyme structure, and gene regulation all used in combination?
All of the above are used very effectively to make the case for creation.
All of the above are used very effectively to make the case for creation.
No, they're not.
All of the above are used very effectively to make the case for creation.
Link?
All of the above are used very effectively to make the case for creation.
Source?
Vegas
07-19-2007, 01:44 PM
No, they're not.
Protein polymerization and DNA (especially with the built-in repair mechanisms) can be interpreted as evidence for design easier than they can be interpreted as results from randomization. When you throw in chilarity the probabilities become even more difficult.
Vegas, I would appreciate some knowledge as to the science behind creationism. A google search gives me nothing that seems reputable. Can you? I am sincerely interested, and will be able to admit it if there is good science and I am wrong.
Protein polymerization and DNA (especially with the built-in repair mechanisms) can be interpreted as evidence for design easier than they can be interpreted as results from randomization. When you throw in chilarity the probabilities become even more difficult.
Well, perhaps if you narrow your view so as to look at only one individual organism.
Except, in regards to repair mechanisms, that become more advanced as you go up the tree of life...
But now we're back to the "it's too hard" argument. Or low probability...I haven't done much reading on chirality of the amino acids...I know all are required to be L. That's about all I know. So, as far as I know, there are no theories out there discussing it...but that's only as far as I know. Realistically, I'm sure there are more than a few labs trying to answer that question.
But really, there's something that I don't get.
All these data garnered by biologists that they claim to support evolution, you say either really doesn't or isn't really all that believable.
Yet, you'll say that the same data they find will "effectively make the case for creation"?
Sounds like a case of wrapping the data around a conclusion instead of a conclusion around the data.
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 02:14 PM
Well, perhaps if you narrow your view so as to look at only one individual organism.
Except, in regards to repair mechanisms, that become more advanced as you go up the tree of life...
But now we're back to the "it's too hard" argument. Or low probability...I haven't done much reading on chirality of the amino acids...I know all are required to be L. That's about all I know. So, as far as I know, there are no theories out there discussing it...but that's only as far as I know. Realistically, I'm sure there are more than a few labs trying to answer that question.
But really, there's something that I don't get.
All these data garnered by biologists that they claim to support evolution, you say either really doesn't or isn't really all that believable.
Yet, you'll say that the same data they find will "effectively make the case for creation"?
Sounds like a case of wrapping the data around a conclusion instead of a conclusion around the data.
Wow, so you can understand why creation believers marvel at the evolutionists' assertions too, right?
Wow, so you can understand why creation believers marvel at the evolutionists' assertions too, right?
Not in the least.
edit:
Let me rephrase that. Based on the actual evidence and what the scientists assert, no, I can't understand it.
Now, if you're talking about the misrepresentations you and others make regarding what the theory says, then yes, I can see why others may not believe it. But that's not science's fault.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 03:15 PM
Vegas, I would appreciate some knowledge as to the science behind creationism. A google search gives me nothing that seems reputable. Can you? I am sincerely interested, and will be able to admit it if there is good science and I am wrong.
This site is pretty good:
http://evolution-facts.org/Handbook%20TOC.htm
Vegas
07-19-2007, 03:19 PM
Well, perhaps if you narrow your view so as to look at only one individual organism.
Except, in regards to repair mechanisms, that become more advanced as you go up the tree of life...
But now we're back to the "it's too hard" argument. Or low probability...I haven't done much reading on chirality of the amino acids...I know all are required to be L. That's about all I know. So, as far as I know, there are no theories out there discussing it...but that's only as far as I know. Realistically, I'm sure there are more than a few labs trying to answer that question.
But really, there's something that I don't get.
All these data garnered by biologists that they claim to support evolution, you say either really doesn't or isn't really all that believable.
Yet, you'll say that the same data they find will "effectively make the case for creation"?
Sounds like a case of wrapping the data around a conclusion instead of a conclusion around the data.
There's no question that knowledge of cells, DNA, etc. has increased greatly (to put it mildly). But I still say that the complexity and extreme improbabilities of those things making themselves out of randomness takes more faith than I have. The numbers are absolutely staggering. I absolutely admit that it's easier to throw up my hands and say that points to a designer than to come up with a mechanism for how everything came to be by natural means, but the statistical math points more towards impossibility than improbability.
There's no question that knowledge of cells, DNA, etc. has increased greatly (to put it mildly). But I still say that the complexity and extreme improbabilities of those things making themselves out of randomness takes more faith than I have. The numbers are absolutely staggering. I absolutely admit that it's easier to throw up my hands and say that points to a designer than to come up with a mechanism for how everything came to be by natural means, but the statistical math points more towards impossibility than improbability.
Ahh, statistics.
They will always give you an answer as to whether something could or couldn't be. I use them frequently.
But the big thing with stats...is that you can get the right answer to the wrong question.
So, you and many others contend that it is nearly statistically impossible to get from say, a single celled organism, to a complex human being.
And for the most part, I would agree.
But, that's not really the question we're trying to answer.
We're not looking for that statistical probability.
We're looking for the one in regards to whether or not a single-celled organism could undergo some sort of genetic modification to become a single-celled organism, but not the same as the original. Even this speciation would be a big step.
But once one step happens, the probabilities start anew, they don't compound. If you look at single cells becoming humans, you compound every probability of every step, and that's not the case. You calculate the probabilities of the individual steps.
Now, I know these are not great odds, either. But the odds are all relative to what knowledge we have now...in certain conditions, odds would be greater than in others, no? You've stated many times that there's no way of knowing of what exactly took place in the past. But...that also means you have really no way of knowing exactly what things were and weren't possible under the conditions we don't know about.
Again, I'm not saying the odds were massively increased for any reason...but stats are stats. And those rely on assumptions, and you need to ask the right question to get the right answer.
As for your faith comment...it's not faith. I will also say it's not not faith in certain instances, too. But in nature, in a test tube, in your body, in space, compounds come together to form larger compounds based on physical properties alone. So there's basis for this idea, not just conjured up.
This site is pretty good:
http://evolution-facts.org/Handbook%20TOC.htm
What are Vance's qualifications?
This site is pretty good:
http://evolution-facts.org/Handbook%20TOC.htm
I see quite a few overstatements, exaggerations, and just plain bad understanding of biology in those few pages I looked at.
I would pose the site is much less than "pretty good".
What are Vance's qualifications?
I found this:
http://pooflingers.blogspot.com/2005/12/crunch-squared-volume-5_07.html
I will take some time to peruse that site, but see no science towards creationism, only trying to poke holes in evolution.
But let us not forget that, though it may be nonsensical, evolutionary theory has greatly affected—and damaged—mankind in the 20th century. Will we continue to let this happen, now that we are in the 21st century? The social and moral impact that evolutionary concepts have had on the modern world has been terrific.
Morality and ethical standards have been greatly reduced. Children and youth are taught in school that they are an advanced level of animals, and there are no moral principles. Since they are just animals, they should do whatever they want. Personal survival and success will come only by rivalry, strife, and stepping on others.
From the book
But let us not forget that, though it may be nonsensical, evolutionary theory has greatly affected—and damaged—mankind in the 20th century. Will we continue to let this happen, now that we are in the 21st century? The social and moral impact that evolutionary concepts have had on the modern world has been terrific.
Morality and ethical standards have been greatly reduced. Children and youth are taught in school that they are an advanced level of animals, and there are no moral principles. Since they are just animals, they should do whatever they want. Personal survival and success will come only by rivalry, strife, and stepping on others.
From the book
Yeah, see that's one of those things the Creationists trump up to make people against evolution before they even know much about it...
None of which I ever learned in any biology class.
As a matter of fact, this
Personal survival and success will come only by rivalry, strife, and stepping on others.
Sounds like a Republican campaign platform.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 04:05 PM
Ahh, statistics.
They will always give you an answer as to whether something could or couldn't be. I use them frequently.
But the big thing with stats...is that you can get the right answer to the wrong question.
So, you and many others contend that it is nearly statistically impossible to get from say, a single celled organism, to a complex human being.
And for the most part, I would agree.
But, that's not really the question we're trying to answer.
We're not looking for that statistical probability.
We're looking for the one in regards to whether or not a single-celled organism could undergo some sort of genetic modification to become a single-celled organism, but not the same as the original. Even this speciation would be a big step.
But once one step happens, the probabilities start anew, they don't compound. If you look at single cells becoming humans, you compound every probability of every step, and that's not the case. You calculate the probabilities of the individual steps.
Now, I know these are not great odds, either. But the odds are all relative to what knowledge we have now...in certain conditions, odds would be greater than in others, no? You've stated many times that there's no way of knowing of what exactly took place in the past. But...that also means you have really no way of knowing exactly what things were and weren't possible under the conditions we don't know about.
Again, I'm not saying the odds were massively increased for any reason...but stats are stats. And those rely on assumptions, and you need to ask the right question to get the right answer.
As for your faith comment...it's not faith. I will also say it's not not faith in certain instances, too. But in nature, in a test tube, in your body, in space, compounds come together to form larger compounds based on physical properties alone. So there's basis for this idea, not just conjured up.
Not great odds? That's quite the understatement. The numbers are astounding. And regarding the single cell organism changing, you still have to overcome the incredible odds of that first cell happening through natural processes. The numbers get far worse.
But let's say that it did all happen and that all of the transitions occurred. We still don't have any pre-Cambrian fossils and we still don't have the billions upon billions of transitional fossils that would represent the intermediate steps. There should be far more transitionals than there are fully formed fossils.
Look about you. There are clouds, seas, and mountains, grass carpets, the plains; and birds sing in the trees. Farm animals graze in the meadows, and water brooks run through the fields. In city and country, people use their astounding minds to plan and produce intricate things. At night the stars come out, and overhead are billions of stars in our galaxy. Beyond them are 100 billion island universes, each with 100 billion stars.
Yet all of these things are made of matter and energy. Where did it all come from? How did everything begin—all the wonderful things of life and nature?
Evolutionist scientists tell us that it all came from nothing. Yes, nothing.
That is not what evolution states.
Not great odds? That's quite the understatement. The numbers are astounding. And regarding the single cell organism changing, you still have to overcome the incredible odds of that first cell happening through natural processes. The numbers get far worse.
But let's say that it did all happen and that all of the transitions occurred. We still don't have any pre-Cambrian fossils and we still don't have the billions upon billions of transitional fossils that would represent the intermediate steps. There should be far more transitionals than there are fully formed fossils.
Until you yourself figure out that a transitional fossil DOES NOT MEAN a partial organism, I can't have this conversation with you.
Your taking the "a watch without all the pieces is not a watch and is not functional" approach to this topic, and that is not the right approach.
As for fossils, maybe they're there and we haven't found them? Maybe the animals didn't die at the right times for fossilization to occur? Maybe the right conditions for fossilization (there's more to it than just the type of rock present) weren't there?
That is not what evolution states.
That's correct. There's nothing in evolution in regards to stars, universes, galaxies, etc.
Origin of life. Nothing more than that, which itself is a huge thing, but in the scope of things, not so much.
Big Bang is not a part of evolution, sorry to say fellas.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 04:11 PM
Until you yourself figure out that a transitional fossil DOES NOT MEAN a partial organism, I can't have this conversation with you.
Your taking the "a watch without all the pieces is not a watch and is not functional" approach to this topic, and that is not the right approach.
As for fossils, maybe they're there and we haven't found them? Maybe the animals didn't die at the right times for fossilization to occur? Maybe the right conditions for fossilization (there's more to it than just the type of rock present) weren't there?
I'm not necessarily saying that a transitional has to be a partial organism. I'm saying that in the geological column that there has never been a demonstrated sequence of vertical evolution. That's not a small problem for evolution.
Ok, I read the first few chapters. Just know that we disagree that this is at all scientific, and I don't believe any of the conclusions that he draws from his supposed data.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 04:12 PM
Ok, I read the first few chapters. Just know that we disagree that this is at all scientific, and I don't believe any of the conclusions that he draws from his supposed data.
Like I didn't see that coming.
I'm not necessarily saying that a transitional has to be a partial organism. I'm saying that in the geological column that there has never been a demonstrated sequence of vertical evolution. That's not a small problem for evolution.
Again. More to evolution than fossils. You're going only by form (bone structure) there.
Of course, a person familiar with fossils may be able to dispute that readily, I don't know. But I am not that person.
Isn't the article this thread started with discussing some of those "non-existant" in-between forms?
Of course, you could look at hagfish and sea lampreys as the only vertebrates without a jaw, and then look at the gill structure and compare that to higher fishes to see that the lower jaw perhaps formed from a gill arch. But that's not a fossil, so...
DNA sequence...protein sequence...protein structure...anatomy...physiology...among others
Vegas
07-19-2007, 04:21 PM
Again. More to evolution than fossils. You're going only by form (bone structure) there.
Of course, a person familiar with fossils may be able to dispute that readily, I don't know. But I am not that person.
Isn't the article this thread started with discussing some of those "non-existant" in-between forms?
Of course, you could look at hagfish and sea lampreys as the only vertebrates without a jaw, and then look at the gill structure and compare that to higher fishes to see that the lower jaw perhaps formed from a gill arch. But that's not a fossil, so...
DNA sequence...protein sequence...protein structure...anatomy...physiology...among others
I fully agree that there's more to the creation side than fossils as well. DNA sequence, protein sequence, protein structure can be interpreted as pointing to creation when you take a serious look at the probabilities.
I fully agree that there's more to the creation side than fossils as well. DNA sequence, protein sequence, protein structure can be interpreted as pointing to creation when you take a serious look at the probabilities.
Is probability the only thing you have to support this assertion, or is there more to it than that, that is, these things supporting creationism.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 04:29 PM
Is probability the only thing you have to support this assertion, or is there more to it than that, that is, these things supporting creationism.
As stated, the repair mechanisms in DNA. If we received a message from outer space in packets that had a built-in error correction mechanism, would we assume that it's a random message that just happened to have error correction or would we assume that it was sent through intelligence?
As stated, the repair mechanisms in DNA. If we received a message from outer space in packets that had a built-in error correction mechanism, would we assume that it's a random message that just happened to have error correction or would we assume that it was sent through intelligence?
Apples.
Oranges.
Is a signal from space a chemical structure that is bound by physical properties allowing it to lose an oxygen here or an amino group there?
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 04:32 PM
One neat thing about cells is that they have a compound in them that is basically a major component of the "glue" that holds together the cell, called laminin.
It's funny what the shape is...
http://bp2.blogger.com/_sPsqz44dcRE/RcUd-Uo-l9I/AAAAAAAAAIo/DYKSQwPw31I/s1600/enM018a.gif
http://pooflingers.blogspot.com/2005/12/crunch-squared-volume-6.html
There are many editions of debunking this guy.
Like I didn't see that coming.
Well, this guy is an MA in Theology. Not a scientist, not at all. Sorry man. I am not the one that is a doubter of this, I think most people in the world would be. This would never be published in any journal, you know that.
One neat thing about cells is that they have a compound in them that is basically a major component of the "glue" that holds together the cell, called laminin.
It's funny what the shape is...
http://bp2.blogger.com/_sPsqz44dcRE/RcUd-Uo-l9I/AAAAAAAAAIo/DYKSQwPw31I/s1600/enM018a.gif
I wasn't able to see the image in the post, but I can see the link, so I looked it up. (but for whatever reason, it shows up in the quote...oh well)
All I can say is, "Case closed."
Of course, a phospholipid, also involved in keeping a cell together looks like a sperm, whatever that means.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 04:36 PM
Apples.
Oranges.
Is a signal from space a chemical structure that is bound by physical properties allowing it to lose an oxygen here or an amino group there?
So you don't see a built-in repair mechanism as evidence for design? If you want to assume that the repair mechanism made itself you're running into odds that are far beyond reason.
An antibody also looks like a Y.
I guess that means we should really ask "Y".
So you don't see a built-in repair mechanism as evidence for design? If you want to assume that the repair mechanism made itself you're running into odds that are far beyond reason.
No, I don't see that as evidence.
I'll decide what is and what isn't beyond reason for me to believe.
Kent Hovind has been notably absent from this convo. Why? Duane Gish?
Kent Hovind has been notably absent from this convo. Why? Duane Gish?
Don't forget Behe.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 04:41 PM
No, I don't see that as evidence.
I'll decide what is and what isn't beyond reason for me to believe.
You're absolutely entitled to believe what you want. When you get to these kinds of numbers and choose to believe that way is when I truly admire your faith. I hope that doesn't come across as condescending. Believing that these things happened through natural processes overcoming incredible odds and becoming a replicating life form that evolved into all of the living things we see today with the ecosystems takes great faith. Especially with the absence of transitional fossils.
One neat thing about cells is that they have a compound in them that is basically a major component of the "glue" that holds together the cell, called laminin.
It's funny what the shape is...
http://bp2.blogger.com/_sPsqz44dcRE/RcUd-Uo-l9I/AAAAAAAAAIo/DYKSQwPw31I/s1600/enM018a.gif
Here's an interesting question.
What happens when you delete laminin from the genome. Does one live or die?
You're absolutely entitled to believe what you want. When you get to these kinds of numbers and choose to believe that way is when I truly admire your faith. I hope that doesn't come across as condescending. Believing that these things happened through natural processes overcoming incredible odds and becoming a replicating life form that evolved into all of the living things we see today with the ecosystems takes great faith. Especially with the absence of transitional fossils.
It's a good thing for me that isn't true. I've posted links before, we'll agree to disagree.
Oh, and in addition to "faith" don't forget the 150 years of scientifically peer-reviewed data that supports me, too.
Don't forget Behe.
He is the sanest.
Vegas
07-19-2007, 04:45 PM
It's a good thing for me that isn't true. I've posted links before, we'll agree to disagree.
Oh, and in addition to "faith" don't forget the 150 years of scientifically peer-reviewed data that supports me, too.
I'm fine agreeing to disagree.
And as far as the 150 years of peer-reviewed data, they still haven't solved the most fundamental problems of evolution.
When you get to these kinds of numbers and choose to believe that way is when I truly admire your faith. I hope that doesn't come across as condescending.
I don't agree with you calling it that, but at the same time, I don't take it as condescension. Mainly because if you referred to any sort of faith as a lesser vehicle of thinking, then you would have to live down to that standard as well.
So, no worries.
It's a good thing for me that isn't true. I've posted links before, we'll agree to disagree.
Oh, and in addition to "faith" don't forget the 150 years of scientifically peer-reviewed data that supports me, too.
Creationists refuse to accept almost anything as transitional.
Trott also claimed that Gish "emphasized that there were no 'transitional forms' in the fossil record but he did not explain what characteristics he would accept as 'transitional' (with the exception of a ludicrous gloss on what one would expect to see in the horns of Triceratops)."[7] With bird fossils "Gish has, for example, declared that the reptile-bird transition Archaeopteryx was not a transition because it had feathers and flew and was, therefore, a bird." Trott noted "to make the absurd assertion that Archaeopteryx did not show features of a reptile, Gish must conceal from his audience facts about Archaeopteryx such as that it possessed a pubic peduncle and a long bony tail. These are features found in reptiles that are never found in birds."
He is the sanest.
Perhaps you've not read his work.
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 04:47 PM
No, I don't see that as evidence.
I'll decide what is and what isn't beyond reason for me to believe.
See, this is my deal. It's similar to Vegas. I took a short 8 week course at work that dealt with biochemistry from a chemistry point of view. Mind you, I was already a believer in Christ. But just my knowledge of what comprises of amino acids, then to learn of how each amino acid is translated via the RNA etc, it just seemed way too structured to be a simple act of fate. How did it end up being so specific and defined that each particular amino acid would never couple in a way that would lead to a protein that was completely different than what was intended for that process?
Perhaps you've not read his work.
Nope, just his outline on wikipedia :)
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Catalano/box/behe.shtml
Apparently there has never been a peer reviewed paper on ID. Why is that?
I'm fine agreeing to disagree.
And as far as the 150 years of peer-reviewed data, they still haven't solved the most fundamental problems of evolution.
yet.
See, this is my deal. It's similar to Vegas. I took a short 8 week course at work that dealt with biochemistry from a chemistry point of view. Mind you, I was already a believer in Christ. But just my knowledge of what comprises of amino acids, then to learn of how each amino acid is translated via the RNA etc, it just seemed way too structured to be a simple act of fate. How did it end up being so specific and defined that each particular amino acid would never couple in a way that would lead to a protein that was completely different than what was intended for that process?
I'm not saying it's not complex. But I'm also not saying irreducibly complex, either.
The thing is that we are looking at these things as they are today and projecting that was like it was back then...way back then. The first organisms may not have had DNA, RNA, or proteins, but some other sort of biomolecule (I posted an article about it from scientific american a month or 2 ago).
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 05:03 PM
I'm not saying it's not complex. But I'm also not saying irreducibly complex, either.
The thing is that we are looking at these things as they are today and projecting that was like it was back then...way back then. The first organisms may not have had DNA, RNA, or proteins, but some other sort of biomolecule (I posted an article about it from scientific american a month or 2 ago).
Right, and God might just have placed every fossil carefully in the ground for evolutionists to find.
Speculation. My only point is to say that, to a certain extent, we're speculating on a lot of things.
Right, and God might just have placed every fossil carefully in the ground for evolutionists to find.
Speculation. My only point is to say that, to a certain extent, we're speculating on a lot of things.
Huh? for the first part
I agree on the second part. But it's not baseless speculation for either side, IMO.
Right, and God might just have placed every fossil carefully in the ground for evolutionists to find.
Speculation. My only point is to say that, to a certain extent, we're speculating on a lot of things.
here's the article, if you care to read it.
http://www.thepartisanpatriot.com/forums/showthread.php?t=904
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 05:12 PM
Huh? for the first part
I agree on the second part. But it's not baseless speculation for either side, IMO.
I was simply throwing out a hypothesis that had no real basis in true evidence. I'd admit my hypothesis is much more unlikely than the one posited by the prof from NYU, but anyway.
I was simply throwing out a hypothesis that had no real basis in true evidence. I'd admit my hypothesis is much more unlikely than the one posited by the prof from NYU, but anyway.
You were equating the hypothesis of God planting all the fossils to there being a biomolecule long ago that is no longer used?
I would agree yours would hold a little less weight..but I wouldn't agree that there is no basis in true evidence regarding the biomolecule.
Ed Who?
07-19-2007, 05:25 PM
You were equating the hypothesis of God planting all the fossils to there being a biomolecule long ago that is no longer used?
I would agree yours would hold a little less weight..but I wouldn't agree that there is no basis in true evidence regarding the biomolecule.
What I'll say is that I'm pretty sure there's a lot about the beginning of the world that I will never know while I'm here.
hannitykillspuppies
07-19-2007, 05:35 PM
nerds.
What I'll say is that I'm pretty sure there's a lot about the beginning of the world that I will never know while I'm here.
I won't disagree there.
Right, and God might just have placed every fossil carefully in the ground for evolutionists to find.
Speculation. My only point is to say that, to a certain extent, we're speculating on a lot of things.
Sheesh.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.