homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Special interest discussion   » Dead Horses   » The Death of Darwinism (Page 32)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  ...  40  41  42 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: The Death of Darwinism
Rex Monday

None but a blockhead
# 2569

 - Posted      Profile for Rex Monday   Email Rex Monday   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The thing that gets me is that IDers have a two-pronged approach to seeing intelligence behind the universe.

First, the universe runs on rules. Therefore, God.
Second, those rules are sometimes broken. Therefore, God.

It does beg the question, which has never been answered, as to what disproof would IDers accept?

R

--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.

Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804

 - Posted      Profile for Petaflop   Email Petaflop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On the "Have we stopped evolving" thread in Purg, Mudfrug asked:
quote:
Is there anyone able to give evidence to show one species evolving into another, rather than one species adapting and showing variants within itself?
OK, I'll bite.

Have a look at this page.

What this page shows is a grouping of protein sequences by similarity for a protein called 'Cytochrome C' (more info here.

The proteins are labelled on the right with the latin species name, with the species arranged in an "evolutionary tree". If you click the boxes on the right for some species, you can compare the protein sequences.

Try for example selecting Homo Sapiens, Pan Troglodytes, and Sus scrofa (human, chimp and pig), and go back to the top of the page and click the button there. You'll see a comparison between the protein sequences - the sequences are too long to fit across the screen so it is broken into groups. Note that Human and Chimp CytC are identical, wheras pig has 4 differences.

If you try other species, you'll find that the number of differences increases as you get creatures which are more different.

Now, that on its own doesn't prove the point. The proteins could be the same because the they are tied up with the shape of the creature, and humans and chimps are more similar in shape than humans and pigs. Which is a valid hypothesis, but falls down if you test it. Humans can manage just as well with pig cytochrome as with human or chimp cytochrome. In this case the similarities demand some other explanation.

So we have an inexplicable similarity between proteins from humans and chimps, which cannot be explained by a biological imperative. The obvious interpretation must surely be that there must be some other connection between Humans and Chimps (and between mice and guinea pigs, and so on).

Now that's just one protein. There are thousands here.
And for many of those, sequences are available across hundreds of species. And in every case, you see a similar pattern: species which are considered under evolution to have a more recent common ancestor have proteins which are more similar than those which are more different. Gigabytes of data, all telling the same story.

You can even draw a tree or a map based on sequence similarity. I did this using ~30 cytochrome sequences dowloaded from the public databases and a computer program I wrote myself in an hour, and got something looking very much like an evolutionary tree. The same sort of tree which was devised by biologists a century ago who had no idea what a protein sequence was. You can do this youself - you don't even need a computer - the tree can be calculated with a pencil and paper in a few hours. It seems to me as though we can legitimately say that there is something which looks like an evolutionary tree written in the very symbols of the molecules of life.

To summarise, all these species have related proteins, and in many cases the similarity is greater than can be explained by any requirements of the function of the protein. The "plain reading" of this result is that there is some other connection between the species. If we group the species by their species similarity, we just happen to reproduce the same type of relationships which were postulated by evolutionary biologists before the availablity of protein sequence information.

[ 03. May 2007, 15:23: Message edited by: Petaflop ]

Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Petaflop, can't you see that all those sequences were put there by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? After all, you can't prove they weren't!

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804

 - Posted      Profile for Petaflop   Email Petaflop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Petaflop, can't you see that all those sequences were put there by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? After all, you can't prove they weren't!

Yes. But I am still left with the observation that the theory of evolution is written into our genetic codes.

If evolution did not happen, and the information was put there by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I am faced with some rather big questions about why the FSM chose to write such an unambiguous but misleading message.

Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Teufelchen
Shipmate
# 10158

 - Posted      Profile for Teufelchen   Email Teufelchen   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Petaflop:
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Petaflop, can't you see that all those sequences were put there by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? After all, you can't prove they weren't!

Yes. But I am still left with the observation that the theory of evolution is written into our genetic codes.

If evolution did not happen, and the information was put there by the Flying Spaghetti Monster, then I am faced with some rather big questions about why the FSM chose to write such an unambiguous but misleading message.

So am I. (And consequently, I do in fact agree with your analysis, and that of scientists since Darwin and Mendel.) But I felt I ought to flag up that many people on the other side of the debate are not troubled by such considerations, and that therefore the elegant demonstration may fall on deaf ears.

T.

--------------------
Little devil

Posts: 3894 | From: London area | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog in Purgatory:
I do not believe that human beings have been anything other than human beings - we are a special creation. Actually, I believe all species were created as they were in their orignal forms. What we see today is the results of adaptations, natural selection/survival of the fittest.

Adaptations? By what means? To what extent? Are different breeds of cats "variations", or distinct species? How is significant variation achieved among a species, in order to make natural selection possible? This all sounds uncannily like evolution by another name.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I have yet to see any convincing evidence in the fossil record of one species changing into anther - I do see a lot of variations on a theme but these are all within a species - ie Darwin's finches: all differen but all finches.

So what would you accept as convincing evidence? ISTM that any fossil is either similar to a known species (in which case you label it "variation"), or significantly different from any known species, which I strongly suspect would lead you, on the basis of your prior assumptions, to conclude that it was an entirely new species. How, then, can evolution be proven to your satisfaction?

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I have yet to see any convincing evidence in the fossil record

So what? Fossils are remains of individual dead creatures. Each fossil it itself.

The evidence for the actual course of evolution is no more specially from fossils than from living creatures - less so because living creatures have more charactes we can study. As just explained the main evidence for the course of evolution comes from nested realtionships between gene sequences.

Its actual kinship we are talking about. Common descent. And the way to explore that is to look at shared characters - especially shared genetic characters - between living creatures as much as fossils. There's nothing special about fossils just because they are dead.

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Teufelchen:
Petaflop, can't you see that all those sequences were put there by the Flying Spaghetti Monster? After all, you can't prove they weren't!

T.

More to the point, they show comment descent i.e. that ancestral forms have evolved into the current diversity of life... but they don't show how this occurred. Unless you can relate changes in primary sequence to evolutionary pressures, then this doesn't by itself prove that natural selection is responsible for the observed evolution.

OTOH, there was a report in Nature, late last year IIRC, which demonstrated the evolution of a new species of butterfly following the emergence of a particular selective pressure. That would provide the sort of evidence being sought. I'll see if I can dig it out.

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Petaflop
Shipmate
# 9804

 - Posted      Profile for Petaflop   Email Petaflop   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
More to the point, they show comment descent i.e. that ancestral forms have evolved into the current diversity of life... but they don't show how this occurred. Unless you can relate changes in primary sequence to evolutionary pressures, then this doesn't by itself prove that natural selection is responsible for the observed evolution.

True. However proving common descent of different species at least proves that speciation is possible, which is major step in the right direction, and a common objection to evolution.
quote:

OTOH, there was a report in Nature, late last year IIRC, which demonstrated the evolution of a new species of butterfly following the emergence of a particular selective pressure. That would provide the sort of evidence being sought. I'll see if I can dig it out.

Do you mean this story?

My understanding is that this interesting feature of the butterflies is that they demonstrate what had previously been a hypothetical mechanism of speciation without geographical isolation. My interpretation of the article was that speciation by geographical isolation was already well supported, although since that is a tangent to the topic of the paper it doesn't receive any detailed attention in the article.

[ 04. May 2007, 13:41: Message edited by: Petaflop ]

Posts: 650 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hmm yes... could well have been. Okay, in that case it's mostly about sexual selection. But getting there!

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
A demonstartion of speciation occuring without geographical isolation is much more impressive than speciation following geographical isolation.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
The Great Gumby

Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989

 - Posted      Profile for The Great Gumby   Author's homepage   Email The Great Gumby   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by The Great Gumby:
I have yet to see any convincing evidence in the fossil record

So what? Fossils are remains of individual dead creatures. Each fossil it itself.
Just to be clear, the quote attributed to me here was originally posted by Mudfrog.

--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman

A letter to my son about death

Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Some real Dead Horses for Jamat.

A really good written overview of horse transitional forms is here: Good ol' Talk Origins

Keith Miller has a nice essay here which uses horse evolution in some of its examples, specifically showing the changes in the skull and toes.

Some nice reconstructions Here

Enjoy.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
(Incidently, saying "yes, but they're still horses!" qualifies one for the Creationist Cliché Award for 2007)

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I thought that one was permanently reserved for the first person to claim the irreducible complexity of the eye?

[ 11. May 2007, 15:21: Message edited by: dj_ordinaire ]

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Alaric the Goth
Shipmate
# 511

 - Posted      Profile for Alaric the Goth     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pox!

I used to know (this would be my early teens) the horse evolutionary sequence, Hyracotherium to Equus off by heart. But now I have to take out Pliohippus, put in Dinohippus, and also worry about remembering a few late Eocene and early Oligocene species!

I am thankful, really, for the more complete picture.

Posts: 3322 | From: West Thriding | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621

 - Posted      Profile for Jamat   Author's homepage   Email Jamat   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Some real Dead Horses for Jamat.

A really good written overview of horse transitional forms is here: Good ol' Talk Origins

Keith Miller has a nice essay here which uses horse evolution in some of its examples, specifically showing the changes in the skull and toes.

Some nice reconstructions Here

Enjoy.

Thank you Karl, I'll check those out.

[ 11. May 2007, 21:07: Message edited by: Jamat ]

--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)

Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
I thought that one was permanently reserved for the first person to claim the irreducible complexity of the eye?

Only if they say "what use is half an eye"; and quote the first half of Darwin's comment on the subject of eye evolution:

"To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree. (Darwin 1872)"

without carrying on the quote where he says:

"Yet reason tells me, that if numerous gradations from a perfect and complex eye to one very imperfect and simple, each grade being useful to its possessor, can be shown to exist; if further, the eye does vary ever so slightly, and the variations be inherited, which is certainly the case; and if any variation or modification in the organ be ever useful to an animal under changing conditions of life, then the difficulty of believing that a perfect and complex eye could be formed by natural selection, though insuperable by our imagination, can hardly be considered real. How a nerve comes to be sensitive to light, hardly concerns us more than how life itself first originated; but I may remark that several facts make me suspect that any sensitive nerve may be rendered sensitive to light, and likewise to those coarser vibrations of the air which produce sound. (Darwin 1872)"

With thanks to the Talk Origins archive page here for kindly collating common creationist clichés to make this sort of thing easier.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
samara
Shipmate
# 9932

 - Posted      Profile for samara   Email samara   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I just finished reading Monkey Girl, which is the story of the Dover, Kansas trial re: ID in the classroom (referenced upthread a couple of years back). Now I'm feeling an overwhelming urge to talk origins.

It's a good, detailed story of the trial. I can't quite recommend it to my conservative friends and relatives, because they might perceive Humes as against Christianity. (He's clearly not an ardent fan, and that can be enough to paint him as an enemy.) I enjoyed it, though.

--------------------
Bookworms will rule the world (after we finish the background reading).
Courtesy of Trouble in China

Posts: 439 | From: Canada | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
In the Hell thread on the Kentucky museum, I posted:

quote:
Originally posted by me
It's called a straw man. Claim evolution is something it isn't (life spontaneously evolving in peanut butter jars) and say that because that doesn't happen, evolution is bunk. It's intellectual dishonesty of the highest order and those behind it should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves. But then I've never found a source of creationist material that knew what "honesty" or "integrity" meant, quite frankly.

To which Fight Club for the Soul responded

quote:
Originally posted by Fight Club for the Soul
Yes, all those faked fossil records and hoaxes throughout history certainly add integrity to the evolutionist camp.

I originally responded "name three", but I thought I'd save FCftS the bother by raising three of the usual creationist accusations of hoax.

1. Haeckel's embryo pictures.

Yes, Haeckel did distort some of the features of his drawings. However, contra the claims of some creationists, Haeckel was not actually trying to use his diagrams to support evolution per se - he was doing so to support his particular pet theory - long discredited - that ontology recapitulates physiology - that a creature, during its embryonic development, relives its evolutionary history. It doesn't. It remains true that embryos show considerable similarities in development, and that similarity is strongest early in development, and that embryos do develop some features which were present in its ancestors but absent in the species now - such as tails in humans, but Haeckel's distortions were a hundred years ago in support of a long discredited hypothesis.

2. Piltdown Man

This was a hoax perpetrated upon evolutionary biologists, not by them. In fact, by the time it had been shown to be a fake, it had become a problem, because it didn't fit in with the other human fossils. It was rather a relief to find it was a fake, and this had been suspected by many scientists simply because it didn't fit in with other discoveries.

3. Nebraska Man

Allegedly (according to creationist myth) this is a humanoid reconstructed from a single tooth which turned out to be a pigs tooth but which is still in text books. Here the creationist version is wrong on several points.

(a) It's not a hoax but a mistake
(b) The mistake was noticed within a couple of years. "Nebraska Man" never got properly integrated into human evolution, because there was such a short time between the discovery and the correction about the origin of the tooth.
(c) He's not in any textbooks, apart from creationist ones.

Any more, FCftS?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fight-club for the soul
Shipmate
# 11098

 - Posted      Profile for fight-club for the soul   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I'm not a creationist.


1. So Biogenetic Law has nothing to do with evolution then? Right. Despite those drawings surving in textbooks still, and still being used, like they were always used, to support evolution. The fact that Haeckel may not have meant them to be used in this manner means nothing.


There is no fossil record that I know of that demonstrates a clear evolutionary transition. The only ones that have ever claimed to have done so have been forgeries. Like Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. Add that one to the list. As Darwin himself noted, most transitional forms are so close to the original species they are trying to link that they have no value one way or the other.


2. I agree with what you say about Piltdown Man.


3. No problems with Nebraska Man. Although are you saying that this 'mistake' had albsolutely nothing to do with evolutionist belief? Come on.

4. What's going on with Peking man?

5. What about the famous Neanderthal Man?

6. Java man was taught as fact, and was supported by faked scientific illustrations.

7. Orce Man, who turned out to be most likely a donkey skull fragment. Evolutionary belief obviously had nothing to do with this either.

8. Lucy the ape (Australopithecus Afarensis), who has been given human hands and feet despite no evidence to support this.

9. CroMagnon man is at least equal in physique and brainpower to modern man, SO, whats the difference again?


For some thought:

1909, Charles Walcott finds Cambrian Rock with representatives from every major animal phylum. 'Sposed to be 550 million years old, and complex invertebrates aren't due for another 40 million years. Explanation?


Stratified rock formed in 5 hours at Mt St. Helens. Haven't seen that in a geology textbook yet.


You seem to be happy generalizing about the fakery and lack of integrity in creationist material. Fire away then....

--------------------
"If I go they'll say I'm wrong, if I stay there'll be no song." - Delirious

Posts: 566 | From: 35°14'04.35" S 149°02'19.56" E | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fight-club for the soul:
I'm not a creationist.


1. So Biogenetic Law has nothing to do with evolution then? Right.

If by "Biogenetic Law" you mean ontology recapitulating phylogeny, then it's been discredited for decades. If you mean what I said, about embryos being more similar early in development, then it's evidence for evolution, yes. But this is the important bit - photographs and unaltered drawings show this just as well as Haeckel's questionable drawings do - so Haeckel's misdemeanours really don't make much odds.

quote:
Despite those drawings surving in textbooks still, and still being used, like they were always used, to support evolution. The fact that Haeckel may not have meant them to be used in this manner means nothing.
If you can find me a modern textbook using Haeckel's drawings I'd be surprised - there may be one or two around. But the same phenomena are clear, as I said before, in other drawings and even in photographs.

quote:
There is no fossil record that I know of that demonstrates a clear evolutionary transition. The only ones that have ever claimed to have done so have been forgeries. Like Archaeoraptor liaoningensis.
That was a fraud perpetrated on evolutionary biologists by a Chinese farmer, not by them. You are confusing perpetrator and victim here. It was a shame that National Geographic jumped the gun and played the Easy Mark for the fraudster, but they didn't actually set out to fool anyone.

quote:
As Darwin himself noted, most transitional forms are so close to the original species they are trying to link that they have no value one way or the other.
Really? How about the series Panderichthys, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega? Or what about Pakicetus, Ambulocetus, Rhodocetus, Dorudon, Kentriodon? They look live very clear series to me, from fish to amphibians and from land-living carnivores to whales.

quote:
2. I agree with what you say about Piltdown Man.

3. No problems with Nebraska Man. Although are you saying that this 'mistake' had albsolutely nothing to do with evolutionist belief? Come on.

What does it matter if it did? The fact is that the mistake was discovered by the scientific community and rectified swiftly.

quote:
4. What's going on with Peking man?

5. What about the famous Neanderthal Man?

6. Java man was taught as fact, and was supported by faked scientific illustrations.

Please reference this.

quote:
7. Orce Man, who turned out to be most likely a donkey skull fragment. Evolutionary belief obviously had nothing to do with this either.
Erm - it's a skull fragment, most probably hominid. What exactly do you think "evolutionary belief" has "made" of this. For a non-creationist, you're giving liars like Gish a lot of credibility.

quote:
8. Lucy the ape (Australopithecus Afarensis), who has been given human hands and feet despite no evidence to support this.
Apart, of course, from the footprints. But what do you mean "has been given"? Artist's reconstructions of course give her our best deductions, but the scientific description of the find, in the actual literature, does not describe anything which is not there. You are aware that Lucy is not the only Australopithecus skeleton we have, aren't you?

quote:
9. CroMagnon man is at least equal in physique and brainpower to modern man, SO, whats the difference again?
Very little. Cro-Magnon man is the early appearance of modern man. We know that. No-one ever claimed otherwise, except Jack Chick - are you really buying into that idiot's ramblings?

quote:
For some thought:

1909, Charles Walcott finds Cambrian Rock with representatives from every major animal phylum. 'Sposed to be 550 million years old, and complex invertebrates aren't due for another 40 million years. Explanation?

Well, of the thirty-two animal phyla, eleven appear in the Cambrian, one is pre-Cambrian, eight post-Cambrian and twelve have no fossil record (Collins, 1994). There are no fish anything like today's, no insects, higher plants, spiders, crabs, lobsters... It's a very different world, as evolutionary theory would expect. In what way were "complex invertebrates" not "due"? They don't have a schedule; they evolved when they evolved.

quote:
Stratified rock formed in 5 hours at Mt St. Helens. Haven't seen that in a geology textbook yet.
What you would find in a geology textbook is the difference between layers of ash and pumice and the sorts of sedimentary rocks that occur in other environments. I am aware that the ICR tries to suggest that they look the same, but no geologist would think so.

quote:
You seem to be happy generalizing about the fakery and lack of integrity in creationist material. Fire away then....
Don't get me started. But I'm not going to reinvent the wheel - try here

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Liopleurodon

Mighty sea creature
# 4836

 - Posted      Profile for Liopleurodon   Email Liopleurodon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fight-club for the soul:
I'm not a creationist.


1. So Biogenetic Law has nothing to do with evolution then? Right. Despite those drawings surving in textbooks still, and still being used, like they were always used, to support evolution. The fact that Haeckel may not have meant them to be used in this manner means nothing.

I've read more books about evolution than you can shake a stick at, and I've *never* seen the Haeckel drawings in any context other than the one Karl described: discussing a discredited theory about the development of embryos. I've certainly never seen anything like "evolution happens - look at these drawings!"

quote:
There is no fossil record that I know of that demonstrates a clear evolutionary transition. The only ones that have ever claimed to have done so have been forgeries.
Check these babies out:
Pakicetus
Ambulocetus
Basilosaurus
See how those limbs just get smaller and smaller as the whales become more aquatic in habit and makeup. Pretty clear to me.

quote:
Like Archaeoraptor liaoningensis. Add that one to the list.
Right, that one gets mentioned an awful lot by creationists. But they're quiet on the subject of Archaeopteryx, which is so beautifully placed between reptiles and mammals.

quote:
As Darwin himself noted, most transitional forms are so close to the original species they are trying to link that they have no value one way or the other.
Yeah but you know, we've found a hell of a lot of fossils since Darwin's time. And gained a tremendous amount of knowledge about dating. This just isn't a problem anymore.

quote:
3. No problems with Nebraska Man. Although are you saying that this 'mistake' had albsolutely nothing to do with evolutionist belief? Come on.
Evolution is not a "belief". It's backed up by vast quantities of evidence. One mistake does not discredit the entire theory any more than one ballsed-up experiment in a chemistry lab proves that the periodic table of the elements is completely wrong.

quote:
4. What's going on with Peking man?
What about him? The last I checked, Homo erectus was still a recognised species.

quote:
5. What about the famous Neanderthal Man?
Again, what about him?

quote:
6. Java man was taught as fact, and was supported by faked scientific illustrations.
Again, it's Homo erectus. Faked in what sense?

quote:
7. Orce Man, who turned out to be most likely a donkey skull fragment. Evolutionary belief obviously had nothing to do with this either.
Not familiar with that one but I'm sure someone who is will be along soon.

quote:
8. Lucy the ape (Australopithecus Afarensis), who has been given human hands and feet despite no evidence to support this.
When you're trying to reconstruct what an extinct species looked like, you sometimes have to make educated guesses. It would be more misleading to pretend that we knew she didn't have hands, than to make the perfectly reasonable guess that, since Lucy is a primate and primates generally have hands, Lucy had hands.

quote:
9. CroMagnon man is at least equal in physique and brainpower to modern man, SO, whats the difference again?
Cro-Magnon man was Homo sapiens, the same species as us. So in terms of species, no difference. He's called Cro-Magnon man after the place where his remains were found, like "these are Roman remains", not because he's a different species.

quote:
1909, Charles Walcott finds Cambrian Rock with representatives from every major animal phylum. 'Sposed to be 550 million years old, and complex invertebrates aren't due for another 40 million years. Explanation?
No problem. Invertebrates aren't a phylum. They are part of a phylum called "Chordata". Many chordata species *are* invertebrates, but not all. Walcott's fossil hunting ground, the Burgess Shale, did include some chordates, most notably Pikaia.

quote:
Stratified rock formed in 5 hours at Mt St. Helens. Haven't seen that in a geology textbook yet.
Not my area, but I'm sure someone else will know about it.

quote:
You seem to be happy generalizing about the fakery and lack of integrity in creationist material. Fire away then....
My beef with YECs is the way that they keep presenting these "unsolved problems with evolution" which have in fact been solved time and time again. But I'm sure you can find fakery in creationist materials if you look.

[cross posted with Karl]

[ 06. June 2007, 13:46: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]

--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale

Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
No problem. Invertebrates aren't a phylum. They are part of a phylum called "Chordata". Many chordata species *are* invertebrates, but not all. Walcott's fossil hunting ground, the Burgess Shale, did include some chordates, most notably Pikaia.

Did you mean to say that Vertebrates are part of Chordata? What's interesting is that there were chordates in the Burgess Shales, but no vertebrates - exactly as evolutionary theory would expect. Since Chordata includes such animals as sea squirts, it's not exactly as if ostriches, mice and T. rexes are sitting there in the Cambrian.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Liopleurodon

Mighty sea creature
# 4836

 - Posted      Profile for Liopleurodon   Email Liopleurodon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
SHIT
Archaeopteryx:
Reptiles and BIRDS, people. Not mammals. Bollocks. The typo fairy has returned to embarrass me.

In response to Karl: yes I missread and possibly mistyped. I'm on heavy prescription painkillers which make me rather dopey, so that's my excuse.

[ 06. June 2007, 13:52: Message edited by: Liopleurodon ]

--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale

Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460

 - Posted      Profile for ken     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
This mostly written about 3 hours ago but I had to go and do some actual work before posting it. So probably massively cross-posted. If it agrees with what others may have said in the meantime it shows we've got our story straight [Biased]

quote:
Originally posted by fight-club for the soul:
1. So Biogenetic Law has nothing to do with evolution then?

I've not heard it called that for a long time, if ever.

And of course its about evolution. The idea is based on the notion that it is easier for an organism to add extra bits on to the end of a chain of development inherited from its parents than it is to alter earlier stages in development. If this was universally true than comparing embryos would allow us to reconstruct kinship. As it is not universally true however, it doesn't - at least it doesn't unless allied with other data.

The theoretical biology of patterns and forms was all the rage in the late 19th and early 20th century and has been out of fashion for the last sixty years or so. Not so much because it was discredited as because genetics and molecular biology turned out to be more productive of new ideas so the sort of mathematically and artistically-minded biologists who might be good at it have tended to do their research in other fields. Some of the classics of the field such as D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson's On Growth and Form are still popular and its the sort of thing that eminent professors turn to in their semi-retirement.

Also comparative embryology is downplayed these days. Probably mainly because it is very hard, and involves looking down microscopes for thirty years then emerging into the light of day with some crazy theory that no-one else can even understand never mind agree with. Though the fly people got a Nobel in the 1990s and everyone has heard of Dolly the Sheep so things are very slowly looking up for embryologists. Its more common among botanists than zoologists for obvious reasons.

quote:

Right. Despite those drawings surviving in textbooks still, and still being used, like they were always used, to support evolution.

Name one serious textbook of the last thirty years that does this. NB many of them show such pictures as examples of historical ideas, because it is common to teach this subject historically - you lecture about Cuvier and Lamarck before you lecture about Darwin, then you move on to the Mendelians and the Neo-Darwinians & so on - but that is not the same thing.

When I was at school in the 1960s and 1970s it was already a cliche to say that people used to believe that ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny (did Karl use a speeilecheeiker?) but now we know that it doesn't. Which is a cliche too far - if obviously does, sort of, more or less, most of the time (especially among plants), but not regularly enough to be predictive. Earlier events of embryology are themselves subject to evolution and whole stages and subsystems can be deleted. So though its great fun its not much use in taxonomy - or nowhere near as much uses as molecular data anyway. There are, it now turns out, loads of different ways in which changes in the relative speed of development of different parts ("Heterochrony") can affect the form of adults. They were pretty extensively catalogued by Stephen Jay Gould in his book Ontogeny and Phylogeny (one of his genuine theoretical contributions)

Also I think you are confusing arguments about the course of evolution with arguments about the fact of evolution - not the same thing at all. (And embryology certainly does support the idea of kinship among living things which is half of what you need to believe in Darwinian-style evolution)

quote:

There is no fossil record that I know of that demonstrates a clear evolutionary transition.

What's that got to do with the price of fish?

quote:

4. What's going on with Peking man?
5. What about the famous Neanderthal Man?
6. Java man was taught as fact, and was supported by faked scientific illustrations.
7. Orce Man, who turned out to be most likely a donkey skull fragment. Evolutionary belief obviously had nothing to do with this either.
8. Lucy the ape (Australopithecus Afarensis), who has been given human hands and feet despite no evidence to support this.

Again arguments about the actual course of evolution of our nearest relatives, which is all very well but is NOTHING to do with the disputes between scientists and YECcies. If it were to be shown tomorrow that every single supposed human fossil we have was a fake there would be no reason for anyone in the world to change their opinion on evolution either way.

This is Natural History, not Natural Philosophy. One counter example does not disprove a theory. We're not doing maths. The Hitler Diaries are fakes. That in no way invalidates the study of history, nor does it mean that we can't say anything about the modern history of Germany - it just means that those documents aren't useful evidence.

I tend to get all those human fossils mixed up anyway. Human palaeontology is dominated by notorious splitters. And not a few publicity junkies. And some of them still give the impression that they believe that we can find fossil ancestors. I don't think they actually believe that - I doubt if any working palaeontologist does - but they give the impression they do, which looks a little disingenuous to me. You get more TV time saying "this fossil is one of our ancestors" (which no serious palaeontologist believes about such things) than you do saying "this fossil is of a member of a species that is almost certainly and in many ways very much like the common ancestors of modern humans and some other species you guys haven't heard of ether" (which is usually what they mean)

quote:

9. CroMagnon man is at least equal in physique and brainpower to modern man, SO, whats the difference again?

No difference at all. Cro-Magnon is just a place in France where some people lived. They are as much modem humans as the Germans or the Greeks are.


quote:

1909, Charles Walcott finds Cambrian Rock with representatives from every major animal phylum. 'Sposed to be 550 million years old, and complex invertebrates aren't due for another 40 million years. Explanation?

I don't see the problem. If correctly identified (there is still a lot of controversy about that) they mean we were wrong about the date of divergence by about 7% which is not that far off on this scale. Which is all tremendously interesting.

Personally I think the phylogenetic divergence of the major phyla happened quite a but earlier but either the separate lineages still resembled each other closely or else they didn't fossilise - that's very common phenomenon - for example the molecular data separated the four or five main groups of mammals from each other some time before the Cretaceous and the main families within them during the Cretaceous. But the first distinctive fossils don't appear till much later, in the Eocene or Oligocene or even more recently. That might well be because all those different lineages of early mammals just looked like early mammals. It is as if four of the current species of mice survived for tens of millions of years and diverged. Their fossils being liad down now woudl still look like mice. The separation of lineages happens before anatomical divergence.

There is also the related phenomenon of "lawn phylogeny" which is when a rapid adaptive radiation produces many similar lineages all at once - relationships between them are hard to resolve.

There are also some technical problems in using molecular data to resolve deep trees which would be a bit longwinded to go into.


quote:

Stratified rock formed in 5 hours at Mt St. Helens. Haven't seen that in a geology textbook yet.

But not sedimentary rock. Keep up at the back!

That kind of formation is actually quite familiar in palaeontology because it is one of the things that can cause large-scale preservation of high-quality fossils. As long as the ash isn't too hot!

--------------------
Ken

L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.

Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Brain firing fingers. Ontology != ontogeny. Bad me.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
fight-club for the soul
Shipmate
# 11098

 - Posted      Profile for fight-club for the soul   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Karl, Ken, Liopleurodon, fantastic responses. Thank you.

Karl, you have more than justified your concern over creationist referencing with that website.


Mulling over data...

--------------------
"If I go they'll say I'm wrong, if I stay there'll be no song." - Delirious

Posts: 566 | From: 35°14'04.35" S 149°02'19.56" E | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Petrified

Ship’s ballast
# 10667

 - Posted      Profile for Petrified   Email Petrified   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Facinating stuff
I was getting slightly puzzled by the comments about ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny because this was certainly part of my a levels in the late 70s. But then I was doing Botany and Ken's post explains all. (it also shows how out of date I am - must do more reading)

On a slight tangent, while trying to follow some of the ideas, I found that a more recent book than "Wonderful Life" has been written on the Burgess Shales "Crucible of Creation" has anyone read it?

--------------------
At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.
SoF a "prick against Bigotterie"

Posts: 540 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
fight-club for the soul
Shipmate
# 11098

 - Posted      Profile for fight-club for the soul   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by ken:


This is Natural History, not Natural Philosophy. One counter example does not disprove a theory. We're not doing maths. The Hitler Diaries are fakes. That in no way invalidates the study of history, nor does it mean that we can't say anything about the modern history of Germany - it just means that those documents aren't useful evidence.


That is a very good point. In the same way one counter example does not prove a theory either, which is where the YEC's tend to fall down a bit. However, I believe there is also a lot of sound scientific evidence coming from that quarter, not just mis-quoted research etc.

--------------------
"If I go they'll say I'm wrong, if I stay there'll be no song." - Delirious

Posts: 566 | From: 35°14'04.35" S 149°02'19.56" E | Registered: Mar 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fight-club for the soul:
I believe there is also a lot of sound scientific evidence coming from that quarter, not just mis-quoted research etc.

There is? Would you care to share any of it?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The hosts will be pretty pissed off if there is - if it had turned about three years ago, the last 31 pages could have been avoided!

--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Liopleurodon

Mighty sea creature
# 4836

 - Posted      Profile for Liopleurodon   Email Liopleurodon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Petrified:
Facinating stuff
On a slight tangent, while trying to follow some of the ideas, I found that a more recent book than "Wonderful Life" has been written on the Burgess Shales "Crucible of Creation" has anyone read it?

I haven't but it's now on my amazon wishlist!

Simon Conway Morris is an interesting character. He seems to regard the evolution of humans (or human-like creatures) as inevitable, which is very interesting. Generally I'm sure he knows a lot about paleontology but I definitely disagree with him on this one. I remember being utterly aghast when I saw him on the programme about what the world might be like had dinosaurs not become extinct, and he was suggesting that by now they might be a bit like green scaly humans. That viewpoint makes my brain hurt. Has anyone read this book?

--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale

Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Petrified

Ship’s ballast
# 10667

 - Posted      Profile for Petrified   Email Petrified   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Liopleurodon:
quote:
Originally posted by Petrified:
Facinating stuff
On a slight tangent, while trying to follow some of the ideas, I found that a more recent book than "Wonderful Life" has been written on the Burgess Shales "Crucible of Creation" has anyone read it?

I haven't but it's now on my amazon wishlist!

Simon Conway Morris is an interesting character. He seems to regard the evolution of humans (or human-like creatures) as inevitable, which is very interesting. Generally I'm sure he knows a lot about paleontology but I definitely disagree with him on this one. I remember being utterly aghast when I saw him on the programme about what the world might be like had dinosaurs not become extinct, and he was suggesting that by now they might be a bit like green scaly humans. That viewpoint makes my brain hurt. Has anyone read this book?

I haven't but it looks interesting (it also comes in paperback which is a lot cheaper)

Now we have lost all our local bookshops I buy books like these online. Recently I was looking for the Regimental History of the London Regt. The first up on the search was Tesco and I got it within 2 days!! They also have both these books in stock - amazing

--------------------
At this time, a friend shall lose his friend's hammer and the young shall not know where lieth the things possessed by their fathers that their fathers put there only just the night before, about eight o'clock.
SoF a "prick against Bigotterie"

Posts: 540 | From: UK | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by fight-club for the soul:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:


This is Natural History, not Natural Philosophy. One counter example does not disprove a theory. We're not doing maths. The Hitler Diaries are fakes. That in no way invalidates the study of history, nor does it mean that we can't say anything about the modern history of Germany - it just means that those documents aren't useful evidence.


That is a very good point. In the same way one counter example does not prove a theory either, which is where the YEC's tend to fall down a bit. However, I believe there is also a lot of sound scientific evidence coming from that quarter, not just mis-quoted research etc.
I spent years debating with creationists, and not once did they present a single piece of scientific evidence that held water any length of time. The best efforts were the ones so hidden in mathematical formulae that you had to be a mathemtician to know what they were trying to claim, never mind why it was wrong (Humphreys' Starlight and Time thing, for example).

So if such evidence does exist, it's not widely known. You'd think it would be, wouldn't you? If it were, why would the creationist machine keep creaking out the same old kack that it does?

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Callan
Shipmate
# 525

 - Posted      Profile for Callan     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There is a discussion of Simon Conway Morris earlier in the thread for those who are interested.

--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton

Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643

 - Posted      Profile for dj_ordinaire   Author's homepage   Email dj_ordinaire   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
SCM was also referenced in a book I read not long back called Singularities by Christian de Duve, a Nobel prize-winner and cell biologist (yay!).

He liked the first part of the book which emphasised the importance of convergence for ensuring that the Earth was likely to produce something very like us sooner or later, even if the lineages in the Burgess shale had undergone very different fates from the ones they did... and disliked that the later parts about how most other planets couldn't evolve anything at all. Self-contradictory, he thought it, and I rather agree.

"... with theological implications which [Conway Morris] does not hesitate to emphasise" I think the phrase was.

Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Liopleurodon

Mighty sea creature
# 4836

 - Posted      Profile for Liopleurodon   Email Liopleurodon   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Thanks for the link Callan. Interesting discussion. I think I will definitely get "Life's Solution" (yeah, sorry for linking to the hardback - phew that's pricey!). I only became really passionate about natural history a couple of years ago so there's a lot of stuff out there which I haven't read yet. (If anyone wants to recommend a really good book, please go ahead and PM me [Smile] )

--------------------
Our God is an awesome God. Much better than that ridiculous God that Desert Bluffs has. - Welcome to Night Vale

Posts: 1921 | From: Lurking under the ship | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Rex Monday

None but a blockhead
# 2569

 - Posted      Profile for Rex Monday   Email Rex Monday   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Going back to whoever raised Haeckel, there's a (possibly more than coincidental) recent mention of him by the Disco Institute, which in turn provoked a response by the doughty PZ on Pharyngula. That link includes quite a lengthy analysis of what's left of Haeckel's diagrams in modern textbooks - and how they're misinterpreted (and that's the very kindest way of putting it) by the IDers.

And while thinking of the various hominid lines and the fossil evidence for them -- it's always fun to ask creationists which of them (the hominids, not the creationists) are men, and which not. I don't believe there's ever been an answer to that.

R

--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.

Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Mad Geo

Ship's navel gazer
# 2939

 - Posted      Profile for Mad Geo   Email Mad Geo   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Has any of the evolutionary experts here discussed this development. If you can direct me to it, I would appreciate it, if not, can you tell me what you think?

--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"

Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I recall some discussion about clays being nucleation surfaces for cell-like structures that could be the precursers of life a few years back. It may even have been around 2003, the date on that article. I'm pretty sure Mike Russell gave a talk or two about while he was working with us, though his preference is for hydrothermal vents.

The consensus is that life definitely appeared in water. But the open oceans just disperse pre-biotic material too quickly, there needs to be something to contain reacting chemicals in. The pores between clay particles are a very good candidate site - especially if they allow proto-cells to form.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rex Monday

None but a blockhead
# 2569

 - Posted      Profile for Rex Monday   Email Rex Monday   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
There's a good discussion about many of these ideas here , which is quite blunt in its conclusion - we just don't know. It also shows that as we think about the issue, more and more intriguing possibilities suggest themselves. It's like looking at Mars: the more we investigate, the stranger, more complex and more exciting it gets.

--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.

Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
On a purely theological level, the idea that life did indeed arise from clay is attractive, although that means nothing scientifically.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Imaginary Friend

Real to you
# 186

 - Posted      Profile for Imaginary Friend   Email Imaginary Friend   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I don't know if this story goes anywhere near providing a Missing Link.

A flesh-eating bird twice the size of a human does sound pretty scary though!

--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough

Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
As with practically all such discoveries, it can't be shown to be a "missing link". There's no way we can prove any given species in the fossil record is the direct descendant of any living species.

What the discovery does show is that there was a much larger range of variation within feathered dinosaurs than previously thought. I don't think anyone was expecting any to be that size. The other thing it shows is that feathers were serving a purpose other than flight - there's no way that beastie was going to take to the air. Which closes a "gap" in the story of avian evolution - that is that as birds evolved they took a structure from their ancestors (feathers) and put it to a new purpose. Which I don't think any serious paleantologist has doubtedly for a long time, though there may have once been a school of thought that saw dinosaurs start to fly without feathers (somewhat akin to pterosaurs) and develop them as they aided flight.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rex Monday

None but a blockhead
# 2569

 - Posted      Profile for Rex Monday   Email Rex Monday   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
On a purely theological level, the idea that life did indeed arise from clay is attractive, although that means nothing scientifically.

What are the theological implications in Adam being created from dust, while everything else was (presumably) ex nihilo?

--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.

Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Rex Monday:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
On a purely theological level, the idea that life did indeed arise from clay is attractive, although that means nothing scientifically.

What are the theological implications in Adam being created from dust, while everything else was (presumably) ex nihilo?
I'm not sure the Bible says that. In the first account humanity is created the same way as everything else; the difference is the Imago Dei. In the second creation account, man is made from dust and then all the animals are made - also "out of the ground" (2:19). I don't see, therefore, that there's a distinction of one being made from dust and the others ex nihilo - in the first account it could all be ex nihilo; in the the second it's all out of the ground.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Neither creation accounts in Genesis specify creation ex nihilo, that's an idea that comes from Hebrews mainly. The best you can manage, and seems to work well, is that "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth" being ex nihilo. But, from that initial creation we then have an earth that's "formless and void" with creation from that point largely (and probably totally) proceeding with a re-arrangement of the material of the earth; in some cases that's explicit such as when the waters are re-arranged to give dry land and seas.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Rex Monday

None but a blockhead
# 2569

 - Posted      Profile for Rex Monday   Email Rex Monday   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Oh well, I was getting over-enthusiastic about the Adam/Earth pun in Hebrew...

Meanwhile, what's all _this_ about?

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1477583.0.rival_to_evolution_may_enter_schools.php

"The Sunday Herald has learned that the Scottish Qualifications Authority (SQA) is considering provision for the theory as part of a review of the science course curriculum.

Intelligent design (ID) is one of a wide range of theories of origin currently taught as part of the Religious, Moral and Philosophy Studies (RMPS) SQA course, but could be moved elsewhere as part of the review. A spokesman for the SQA said: "It happens to sit in RMPS just now. If and when it does becomes part of the curriculum for science, which it may well do as part of this review, then that's where it could sit.""

Looks like someone's been nobbled...

--------------------
I am largely against organised religion, which is why I am so fond of the C of E.

Posts: 514 | From: Gin Lane | Registered: Mar 2002  |  IP: Logged
The Revolutionist
Shipmate
# 4578

 - Posted      Profile for The Revolutionist   Email The Revolutionist   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hey folks. I'd like to try and find some good up-to-date books on understanding how Genesis and evolutionary science relate, in particular from an evangelical point of view, out of my own interest and also because I want to find some stuff to recommend to a friend who's studying Biosciences at university who I've been chatting with about this kind of thing.

I've had a quick look through some of the pages on this thread, and couldn't spot recommended reading of this sort, so I wonder what people would suggest?

Posts: 1296 | From: London | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  ...  29  30  31  32  33  34  35  ...  40  41  42 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools