So anyone, please tell me:
What evidence is there that firmly demonstrates the occurrence of evolution in the past or present?
And,
What evidence is there that firmly links rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to the increase in global temperature?
Can anyone actually cite some worthwhile evidence, apart from the easy-to-debunk, endlessly rehashed fallacies and disproven non-facts?
What I’m looking for is definitive, conclusive evidence that completely excludes all other explanations… Not piles of circumstantial evidence that can be equally well explained by other theories.
In short: I want proof that DIRECTLY AND UNCONTESTABLY PROVES that evolution or global warming is a fact, not CONJECTURES BASED ON (HIGHLY) CORROBORATIVE DATA that it is a fact.
Also, clarification: I’m looking for proof of macro-evolution, i.e. evolution from one species or even Class into a whole other type of life form. Micro-evolution, i.e. adaptation within a recognizable kind of life form, is a given.
The bet: That you cannot quote or link me any evidence that proves beyond reasonable doubt that evolution has happened, or that global warming is caused by human produced carbon dioxide emissions into the atmosphere.
The stake: If you present an argument that I actually find compelling, I will believe in evolution and/or global warming. I will publicly admit as much from now on, including the fact that I was wrong about the subject before.
Note: I’ll keep a very open mind, but good luck trying. I was once a strong believer in both evolution and global warming, until I actually LOOKED AT THE EVIDENCE AND ARGUMENTS MYSELF instead of just accepting what the evolution textbooks and An Inconvenient Truth say.
So you might have a hard time re-convincing me of all the old arguments that I had debunked for me to turn me from proponent to skeptic.
Related:
Why I Feel About Global Warming The Same Way I Feel About Evolution
100 Scientists Dissent Darwinism
100 Scientists Dissent Global Warming
Tags: An Inconvenient Truth, climate change, creationism, Darwinism, evolution, global warming, intelligent design, skepticism
December 17, 07 at 10:40 am
I just want to add a little something for others who want to comment. The website http://www.junkscience.com has a cash prize for evidence of man-made global warm.
Here’s what they actually offer (This is a quick cut and paste)
If you think it’s a no-brainer that humans are causing catastrophic global warming, here’s your opportunity to earn an easy US $150,000.00!
The prize has gone unclaimed for 132 days!
If that’s not enough prize money, you can go to http://www.randi.org for a $1,000,000 challenge. Here’s the details.
At JREF, we offer a one-million-dollar prize to anyone who can show, under proper observing conditions, evidence of any paranormal, supernatural, or occult power or event.
December 17, 07 at 10:47 am
Evidence for evolution? You’re joking right? Either that, or you’re a moron, or branwashed. If you’ve looked for evidence, and not found it, you are a moron, or brainwashed. Those are your choices.
December 17, 07 at 11:01 am
I’ve never heard of being branwashed before. Do you use raisin bran or grape nuts for that?
Why don’t you just give him a few good links? Insults are not proof!
December 17, 07 at 11:11 am
talkorigins.org
December 17, 07 at 11:14 am
More specifically, because if you had spent even 10 seconds searching, you’d already know of that:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
But I don’t expect that to overcome the brainwashing you’ve suffered.
December 17, 07 at 11:16 am
Also try this challenge:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
December 17, 07 at 11:52 am
Thank you for your links, scaryreasoner. I would have appreciated it if you actually argued out the evidence rather than copy-paste or referred a huge site, but oh well.
So here we go:
—————–
On ape and human genomics:
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/hum_ape_chrom.html
This falls under the category of Circumstantial Evidence. The murder victim died of huge claw wounds. The X-Man Wolverine has huge claws. But in order to convict him, more than just that fact has to be proven.
Similarly, it is the Darwinist’s own argument that the fact of pterosaurs, birds and bats all have similarly aerodynamic wings is a coincidence – they are not related. Neither are the outwardly similar flippers of penguins, dolphins, sharks and ichthyosaurs.
(But then again, these are the same phylogenists that promote the litle mousey rock hyrax as closely related to the fatty elephant and swimmy dugong, based on the structure of the leg bones and ballsies. I eagerly anticipate the discovery and museum display of the transitional fossils leading from heffalump to hamsterax to mermaid.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyrax#Evolution
Of course, coincidence cannot be even considered, unless it is advantageous to evolutionary theory, such as how life can form from nonliving molecules due to raw coincidence.)
So apes have genomes that seem similar to that of humans. How does that prove that it is not a coincidence? Why did all the halfway-genome-between-different-organisms become extinct, yet not the current my-genes-are-unique organisms?
Why is it taken as a ‘sure fact’ that as a result of sheer random chance, life could spontaneously form from nonliving molecules, or a complex biological feature such as an eye or flagella could develop, despite the extremely low probability…
While the also unlikely probability of genomes looking similar between apes and humans due to sheer random chance is rejected outright?
How convenient, as the detective would say.
——————–
On fossils, ontogeny and atavisms:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Again, all this may seem very compelling until you realize that none of it actually demonstrates evolution happening. It only seems to if you take a prescribed viewpoint of it.
I would rename the link ’29 Circumstantial Evidences’.
If you saw a dead body with a head wound and a broken glass bottle nearby, you could surmise that the victim’s head was smashed with the glass bottle, causing his death.
However, it could easily turn out that the victim had been hit on the head with a rock, and the smashed bottle was just a coincidence. The bottle does not show you step-by-step that it hit the victim’s head, you can only conjecture so.
Similarly, the fossils of weird ‘transitional’ organisms, embryos seeming to undergo ‘evolution’ as they develop into fetuses, and ‘leftover’ parts in modern organisms does not actually demonstrate that so-and-so evolved from such-and-such once upon a time. You can only conjecture so.
That is to say: How do we know from fossils that the legged whales must have descended from land whales, and in turn evolved into legless modern whales? Could they not have been three completely independent (and maybe even contemporary) groups of organisms?
How do we know that vestigial hind limb bones in Cetaceans show that they must have evolved from hind-legged animals? To turn evolution on its head, how do you know that modern whales are not evolving hind legs in order to adapt to life on land as future legged-whales?
See the problem? The ‘evidence’ is merely an inconcusive observation, stuck in three dimensions without any appreciation of time.
Evolution is a good theory, yes, but it is by no means PROVEN by my standard. And my standards are not very exactling, I just need some definitive proof that cannot be interpreted towards another, just as likely conclusion.
Compare this to hard and proven theories, such as plate tectonics where continenent have been measured to move. Or Einstein’s relativity, as proven by Eddigton’s observation of lhow much light is bent by the Sun’s gravity.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
I still await a demonstration of an organism evolving into a wholly different species.
———————
But I don’t expect that to overcome the brainwashing you’ve suffered.
Ah, the standard ad hominem smear tactic. You obviously either missed the part where I stated how I was a firm proponent of evolution BEFORE becoming a skeptic DUE TO to lack of conclusive evidence, or ignored it intentionally.
I’ll go with you ignoring it, since my post is really, really short for you to completely miss the BOLDED CAPS I wrote my statement in.
I do not reject evolution outright on a philosophical basis… I merely wish for more conclusive evidence than fossils of ‘whales with legs’ that can just as easily be defined as a Family of its own.
December 17, 07 at 11:57 am
Steve, Uri Geller might want to take you up on the second offer… Provided he can use his own materials and equipment, and no hidden cameras are allowed, and he gets to use his own volunteers, and he chooses his own experimen methodology…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uri_Geller#Testing
December 17, 07 at 12:08 pm
Great video from James Randi. Serveral others on Youtube.
December 17, 07 at 12:18 pm
Hahahahaha.
It’s always good when I so soundly defeat the opposition with a mere few links that their counter argument amount to nothing but sputtering nonsense.
Too bad the sputterer won’t realize it.
December 17, 07 at 12:31 pm
It’s always good when I so soundly defeat the opposition with a mere few links that their counter argument amount to nothing but sputtering nonsense.
Which is another way to say, TLDR ‘cos he can’t be bothered to actually check my sanity before ordering Batman to take me to Arkham.
The saintiffik metodd triumfs againks!
December 17, 07 at 12:43 pm
Scott, the reason I link to a “huge site’, is that is the most concise resource out there. The evidence for evolution, in it’s entirety, would, and does, in printed journals, occupy entire buildings, at many universities.
You want a very concise reply. There isn’t a very concise reply. There is instead, an avalanche of data which will bury you completely. Go find it.
December 17, 07 at 12:44 pm
Hahaha, Scott, I may not share your Creationist understanding but I certainly share your stand against Type B scientists and their hanger-ons wrt Global (fawning of) Warming as well as Darwin’s starch beard Evolutionary Theory.
December 17, 07 at 1:00 pm
wits0…. anybody in this day and age who thinks evolution is wrong is just plain ignorant. Period. Don’t trust me — educate yoursefl – -you obviously need to.
December 17, 07 at 1:17 pm
wits0…. anybody in this day and age who thinks evolution is wrong is just plain ignorant. Period. Don’t trust me — educate yoursefl – -you obviously need to.
But all your insults and assumptions and massive non-concise links fail to tell me the one thing I am looking for:
What evidence DIRECTLY SHOWS that evolution happens in life forms, that cannot be as satisfactorily explained by any other theories?
For example, to prove that carbon dioxide levels cause global warming, simply measure the CO2 levels and temperature over a certain period of time. If the data matches after all other factors have been excluded, then CO2 can be said to cause global warming with a fair degree of certainty.
All we have are unrelated fossils that do not in any way testify to the fact that they represent steps in the evolutionary ladder – rather than say, creatures that randomly happened to look similar. How do fossils of dead animals placed side by side prove beyond reasonable doubt that they evolved from one another, any more than placing pots next to frying pans show they evolved from a common skillet ancestor?
There is good reason why many people still dispute evolution, while few dispute the Principles of Motion or thermodynamics.
Yet the anti-evolutionists are routinely denounced as morons (as you have demonstrated) just because they want more solid, irrebukeable evidence that evolution happens.
December 17, 07 at 1:32 pm
The problem with the CO2 example and many other things is that you can’t really exclude all the other factors.
The data also might show an association but not a causal link.
Interestingly, there were two discoveries this year that are related. First, they discovered that the differences in human DNA is five times greater than they had previously thought. A lot more diversity within humans.
Second, they found T-Rex DNA is a leg bone. It appears the DNA of Dinasours is similar to chickens…who knew!
December 17, 07 at 1:36 pm
“If you present an argument that I actually find compelling, I will believe in evolution and/or global warming.”
Scott, the problem is you are too fucking stupid to understand anything, so you are not going to find anything compelling.
December 17, 07 at 1:38 pm
Scott, you know how to read, don’t you.
The Making of the Fittest: DNA and the Ultimate Forensic Record of Evolution
by Sean B. Carroll
Read it. If you are not convinced by it, then I was right. You are fucking stupid.
December 17, 07 at 2:05 pm
Steve, I thought the current in-thing was that birds evolved from therapod dinosaurs.
Mind you, you and I have bacterial DNA in us.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/292/5523/1903
bobcu, Stalin would say you’re a bourgeoise kapitalist pig for not being convinced by his Communist manifesto. By the same standard you use on me, that makes Stalin automatikally korrekt.
The least you could do is quote come arguments from the book. Even scaryreasoner was more helpful and genuine in his hope of convincing me of the evidence for evolution.
Even I, the guy who gives credence to Intelligent Design, provide the readers with the following link on the book you mention:
http://discovermagazine.com/2006/sep/carrollinterview
You? You’re just a troll. Thanks for the halfhearted book citation though.
December 17, 07 at 2:24 pm
From what I garner, the book seems to be about showing how DNA is closely related between life forms.
However, the same problem pops up again: How does this actually show f’ing stupid people like me that evolution happened?
Or take the much-maligned Intelligent Design, which would argue that all the different DNA is seemingly related, but in reality was designed with those differences from the start.
Put it this way: If you were to compare Puyo Puyo, Kirby’s Avalanche and Dr Robotnik’s Mean Bean Machine, an evolutionistic mindset might lead you to conclude that all three evolved from the same ancestor through random and gradual changes caused by enviromental factors and survival of the fittest.
Whereas in reality, the games were designed similar yet different. No randomness or gradual evolution there, just an Intelligence at work, designing the games to be exactly the way they are.
So it can be likewise argued for similar-looking DNA: They can look so startlingly similar, yet be unrelated except for superficial likeness.
Now Intelligent Design’s postulates are by no means proven, but neither are evolution’s postulated proven by circumstantial DNA evidence.
December 17, 07 at 3:04 pm
Scott:”Yet the anti-evolutionists are routinely denounced as morons ..”
You know that similar islamist routine, “you are ignorant”, when they are far worse off by way of all-consuming ignorance.
December 17, 07 at 3:27 pm
Don’t get me wrong now mates. I appreciate the linkage and info, and honestly I think I’d find the DNA evidence angle interesting. It might even be just what I’m looking for – if in fact it demonstrates the gradual adaptation of genes through the life forms, at the exclusion of other explanations.
December 17, 07 at 4:11 pm
Oh you trolls and launchers of ad hominem attacks!
Most of the time, these kinds of people experience a gut reaction whenever they encounter something that they deem to be wrong because it goes against something that seems to be so obviously right to them. Thus, they reply from their gut rather than their brains and can only launch ad hominem attacks.
Or they just find pleasure in being assholes.
December 17, 07 at 4:30 pm
Uncultivated people are commonly characterized by predictable gut reaction of the self-righteous sort. The supremacist streak cannot be easily hidden.
December 18, 07 at 8:48 am
scaryreasoner said: wits0…. anybody in this day and age who thinks evolution is wrong is just plain ignorant. Period. Don’t trust me — educate yoursefl – -you obviously need to.
A Christian fundamentalist could similarly argue, “Anybody who has studied the Bible and compared its prophecies made hundreds of years before they were fulfilled in Jesus, the archaeological evidence testifying to the accuracy of its narrative, and the historical proof of the existence of Jesus is just being plain ignorant!”
December 18, 07 at 8:58 am
As a biologist, ex evolutionist, Creationist and Christian, I have studied both sides of the issue for the past 6 years. My conclusions, based on the weight of scientific evidence, are that evolution is a myth and the greatest scientific deceit foisted upon the world.
December 18, 07 at 9:38 am
Actually wits0 and guys, I am not a strict Creationist in the usual sense. I do believe that God created everything including life. But I remain open as to exactly HOW He did it.
If it was by evolution and it is proven thus, then I will accept it and it will by no means ‘kill God’ for me. (Though other Christians do not feel that step-by-step evolutionistic creation fits the Biblical narrative.)
So any opposition I have to the theory (THEORY! NOT FACT!) of evolution is based on rational, logical and scientific conviction, not religious or philosophical.
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/11/06/creation-how/
December 18, 07 at 9:40 am
Scott, whatever happened to th Peace marchers from the sixties and the “love (and LSD) children” aka Hippies? Those strident unilateral disarmament idiotarian kids, the madness that was such a faddish thing then well up to the seventies or so? How much did they contribute to the downfall of Communism and its evil empire or world peace? Zilch, the just fade away, only to be replaced by another crazy incarnate like this unholy grail of the environmentalist fanaticism.
December 18, 07 at 10:23 am
What ended the Cold War was socialism collapsing in on itself, accelerated by Ronald Reagan (the great Conservative Republican president) standing up to the Soviet bullies instead of cowering in fear or appeasement.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/10/moonbats_ended.html
December 18, 07 at 12:26 pm
Exactly, Scott, all the do-gooders then accomplished nothing worth their strung out cacophony.
Today we have the same type of useful idiots out to change the world from a hidden dissenting agenda via environmentalism just because they secretly hate their own countries’ governance, often. because of selfish reasons and hankering for the mores pf liberalism. Example, the gays who are willing to accord all moral equivalence to jihadists without caring to find out what islamism stands for.
The US ACLU is another, pursuing civil liberties for islamists without caring to understand their own great deviousness, intentional or otherwise. Great way to destroy civil liberties in the name of upholding civil liberties! Nah, their intent is not pure, neither is their cause substantiated by credible evidence.
December 19, 07 at 12:48 am
Get a copy of Jonathan Weiner’s book, The Beak of the Finch, a story of evolution in our time. Peter and Rosemary Grant, sort of the stars of the book, are still doing a longitudinal study of evolution of several species of birds on an island in the Galapagos Archipelago. By 1994, when the book was written, they’d got more than 20 years of data, more than 24 generations, on every individual in three different species. They captured and measured each one, and they spent the mating, nesting and fledging seasons on the island observing. With millions of data points, they can predict what evolution will do — a key test of a theory — but they also recorded speciation events, and everything else Darwin wrote about.
I tend to agree with other commenters — if you’re not convinced simply by your gardening and watching of the world, you’ll probably not be convinced by anything. Weiner explains evolution well, and he explains the real-life consequences that we suffer from and benefit from, every day. You’ll read about the Monsanto lab that tracks evolution of insect pests through the growing season, to better serve farmers who themselves disavow such science. Ironic.
Among the best evidence for evolution I know of is the evolutionary charts for whales from their land-roaming relatives in the ancient land where Pakistan is now. The evidence covers the full range, geology, paleontology, zoology and molecular biology, to arrive at a very clear portrait of whale evolution.
Among the more quirky, but convincing to me: The neck of the giraffe, and the vagus nerve. Giraffes are crippled in their life by their massive neck bones. They are mammals, and they have seven neck bones, just like you — just like a shrew. Only to become long-necked, those bones must be massive, and they are so massive that they limit the motions of a giraffe. It is literally life-threatening for a giraffe to bend down to get a drink. But of course, if they had any shorter neck, they’d starve in competition for food. A true evolutionary compromise (consider, too, that the hummingbird has 14 bones in its neck, pneumatized to make them lighter — a benevolent designer would have given similar bones to the giraffe, don’t you think?).
And the vagus nerve, in mammals, has a nastly little vestige of our fish ancestors. It runs through the aortic loop. In fish, that makes it a short journey from brain to throat, in fish and sharks it’s often a straight line. As amphibians, reptiles and then mammals evolved, the nerve kept running through that loop, but the path from the brain to the throat now has to run down to the heart first (aortic loop, remember?). So in humans, the nerve is more than twice as long as it would need to be if efficiently engineered, or if it hadn’t been moved by evolution.
In giraffes, the vagus nerve is more than 15 feet long, typically, running from brain, down the neck, through the aortic loop (where it connects to nothing, of course), back up the neck, to the larynx. (I’m making a quick sketch here — it’s much more complex than that; but this is the evolutionary stuff.)
The question for anti-evolutionists is why that nerve, connecting the brain to the throat, must run down to the heart. And the only answer is, it doesn’t, except that evolution has not found a way to stop it from looping through that artery in development. So the embryo develops the way ancestral embryoes did, right through that loop; and as some creatures grow to stand upright, on fours or twos, the looping becomes more loopy; it’s a vestige of our fishy ancestry.
You know, there are hundreds more examples like that in comparative anatomy. Have you ever taken an anatomy course?
December 19, 07 at 7:16 am
Using scientific method, what would be a reasonable proof for evolution. There seems to be lots of evidence but there also seem to be some dots that don’t connect.
For example, how complete does a fossil record have to be to show one animal evolving into another. We certainly see mutations and variations all the time. That’s pretty easy to prove.
Also it seems that there might be some evidence that changes in a species has nothing to do with natural selection by rather the effect of gamma rays on DNA. These rays are coming from billions of lightyears away so Earth environment doesn’t affect them.
December 19, 07 at 8:10 am
Women Attracted to Men in Sports Cars Cause Global Warming
http://tinyurl.com/ynlwgg
December 19, 07 at 8:31 am
My apologies. I should have made it clear that what I want is evidence of MACRO-evolution. Micro-evolution (within the same species or close enough to be considered the same) is pretty clear, and I accept this type of adaptation.
What I’m looking for is demonstrative evidence that, say, a finch evolved into a new Class of animal. Not a short-necked giraffe evolving into a long-necked giraffe, with the same number of bones.
As for the whales, the same objection arises: How do we know that the fossils are of completely independent, unrelated species that happen to look somewhat like one another?
(Or I can even quote the Eohippus to horse argument: How can it be said that one-toed horses evolve from many-toed horses losing toes over the ages, when the fossils of those horses do not appear in the correct order? That is to say, three-toed horses appear ALONGSIDE one-toed and five-toed horses, and even in the wrong order.)
I know it may be much mroe unlikely than the fossils beign a related, sequential line of evolution. But if the coincidence explanation cannot be excluded, then the evidence isn’t what I’m looking for.
Once again: All this ‘evidence’ is quite compelling, and very interesting. I actually am impressed by how it all seems to point to evolution. But I am still looking for that one (at last) conclusive piece that excludes all non-evolution explanations.
That is the piece that will convince me that evolution is PROVEN, not conjectured based on highly corroborative data.
Buts thanks for the info. Every little bit counts…
December 19, 07 at 9:22 am
Ed, I consider evolution to be an excellent and highly intutive theory, with plenty of very corroborative and complementing data. It’s just not quite proven to me yet, on the level that ‘exposure to radiation causes cancer’ is proven.
(On that note, the evidence of carcinogenic properties of DDT and various other scare-factors are also highly unconvincing to me.)
(consider, too, that the hummingbird has 14 bones in its neck, pneumatized to make them lighter — a benevolent designer would have given similar bones to the giraffe, don’t you think?).
The idea that foolish, detrimental or cruel characteristics – such as the blind spot caused by the optic nerve or agonizingly lethal jellyfish nerve poisons – disprove the existence of a Designer is a misrepresentation of Intelligent Design.
ID does not require that the Designer is benevolent, or even perfectly Intelligent and incapable of mistakes. It is Judeo-Christianity that claims that. ID only postulates that an Intelligence designed the complex life that exists, horrifying endoparasitical wasps included.
But even within the Judeo-Christian belief, Creationism and Intelligent Design are not incompatible with evolution and the existence of non-benevolent, imperfect adaptations.
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/11/22/the-sin-theory-of-evolution-reconciling-evolution-creationism-and-intelligent-design/
Of course, there’s no evidence for any of my postulates, so it’s just a mental exercise.
December 19, 07 at 9:23 am
This is really a good clarification of what you’re looking for. For example, you’d like to see the complete fossil record that shows a lizzard becoming a chicken. That one should be fairly easy because the DNA of dinasours is very similar to a chicken.
I’d like to see the answer too.
December 19, 07 at 9:25 am
Steve, sometimes I can’t tell when you’re being sarcastic…
December 19, 07 at 10:37 am
So the evolution arguments are coming fast and intelligent…
WHERE ARE ALL THE GLOBAL WARMISTS???
December 19, 07 at 11:05 am
I was trying to be helpful.
I think you did clarify what you’re looking for in terms of proof. Let’s see what the responses are.
December 19, 07 at 11:20 am
In know, Steve, and thanks… You hit the nail right on the head. It’s just…
For example, you’d like to see the complete fossil record that shows a lizzard becoming a chicken. That one should be fairly easy because the DNA of dinasours is very similar to a chicken.
How can anyone deny the inherent funniness of that phrase? Haha!
December 19, 07 at 11:54 am
I just saw that on discovery last night. The similarity between dinasour and chicken DNA is one of the top 10 discoveries of 2007
December 19, 07 at 12:03 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds#Molecular_evidence_and_soft_tissue
Similar indeed, just as how the body structure bears similarities. But the age old question again: What happened to all the fossils of transitional forms between Dino and KFC? Particularly when even supersoft life forms like jellyfish can be preserved, so there’s no excuse there.
Or maybe the Tunneling Meatball Mole did it.
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2006/07/21/11/
December 20, 07 at 12:08 am
You could use some background in paleontology, too. Fossilization is extremely rare. We should expect enormous gaps in knowledge. That there are no fewer than 23 transitionals clearly showing the evolution of whales from land-dwelling, even-toed ungulates is something close to a miracle.
But of course, there are several dozen transitional forms between dinosaurs and modern birds. How many more do you want? Is there some magic number where we can say, “Oh, now it’s enough evidence?”
Scientists tell the joke about creationists who argued that there was no link between modern humans and ancient apes. Somebody pointed out that there were dozens of examples of Neandertal already known. “Well, then,” the creationists said. “It’s not one link you’re missing, but two — the link from ancient apes to Neandertal, and the link from Neandertal to modern man.” For every link found, creationists want two more.
So, now we have 20 species between the ancient apes and modern humans. I expect Scott to argue that we need 40 links now, instead of just a few more.
We already have a chain. Why do we need more links, if our goal is simply to have a chain? Why does it need to be longer?
December 20, 07 at 2:13 am
The last thing I read was a change that modern humans didn’t descend from Neanderal but rather they were two separate tracks and existed at the same time. They actually had bigger brains that homo sapiens.
December 20, 07 at 9:06 pm
Well, considering the size of the gap between ancient ape to Neanderthal, that’s a lots of links that can fit into it.
And if the gap between primate and primate is so large, what about the gap between entire Classes? Entire Phylums?
Quite frankly, if single-celled organisms evolved into multi-cellular organisms, can’t we observe this happening with modern transitionary forms between single-celled organisms and multicellulars?
Shouldn’t evolution occur every chance it gets, or have modern single-celleds somehow lost the ability to evolve past the unicellular stage? It was my understanding that modern single-celleds were basically identical to ancient ones.
It’s true that fossilization is very rare, but what then are the chances that the recognizable life forms are always the ones fossilized, and almost or always never the transitionals? Or is hyper-speed punctuated equilibrium the explanation, where species transition for only a few generations before becoming a new species entirely?
And in any case, a staunch Intelligent Design proponent could argue that the single ‘link’ between ape and Neanderthal is not a transitionary form at all, but a separate form in its own right that looks like half-ape-half-man, but did not actually evolve from ape and eventually evolve into man.
December 20, 07 at 11:50 pm
Where to begin?
Every individual is a transitional, technically. My point was that there are lots of transitionals that show the transitions. But regardless how many there are, bullsh—-rs always say “not enough!” Niles Eldredge has a collection of more than 2,000 trilobites covering 300 million years of evolution. In those fossils one can trace the rise of antennae. One can trace the evolution of eyes on the critters. Almost every step of evolution of everything is visible in the fossils.
But you claim there’s not enough transitionals.
What’s enough? Creationists used to argue that there were not fossils of ancient whales, so whales were said to falsify evolution. Then, in Pakistan, in the former Tethys Sea, paleontologists got a great specimen of ambulocetus, a mammal that lived probably mostly in the water, preyed on other creatures, and had the features of a whale relative.
“Not enough!” creationists shouted. “That’s only one! There is no link from that one to modern whales!”
When the PBS series on evolution was first broadcast and Carl Zimmer’s companion book came out, it included all the latest finds — seven transitional species known between ambulocetus and modern whales, clearly showing the gradual transition of feet to bone vestiges, tail to flukes, nostrils to blowhole, landlubber ears to whale ears, etc., etc., etc.
Did any creationist admit it at the time? No.
I attended a lecture by Kenneth Miller a few weeks ago. He noted he’d given a speech in Connecticut, in Carl Zimmer’s home town, and since Miller had pirated the chart from Zimmer’s book showing the seven transitionals, he made note of that fact and complimented Zimmer’s work (proper attribution, in other words). You can see Zimmer’s chart here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/11/8440/49578
After the presentation, Miller said, who should approach him but Carl Zimmer. They had not met previously. They exchanged pleasantries, talked about the reactions to the presentation, and then Zimmer dropped the bomb on him: “That chart’s not accurate,” Zimmer said.
“Now there are 23 transitionals known.”
Here’s a chart from Zimmer showing more of the transitionals. Evolution is clear from this chart, and especially from viewing the specimens of the fossils (plus, there’s a novel little puzzle that the molecular guys solved before it was understood, which confirms evolution yet one more way, by DNA):
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/evolution/
(You’ll have to do a search for “whale” and look for the chart; Zimmer’s moved from corante to the Seed stable of science blogs, and the old archives here are kinda unwieldy if your RAM isn’t massive.)
Sure, there are a lot of links possible. Some may never be found (fossilization is rare, remember). But considering that fossilization is rare, that we have already got so many transitionals in so many different genera, the quantity of fossil transitional species alone is unrebutted, and I would say irrefutable, proof of evolution.
If one doesn’t want the universe to be as it is, for whatever nefarious or even noble reason, of course, one may continue to try to deny it. Facts are stubborn things. Fossils are stubborn, too, and often made of rock. Our wishes for a different universe cannot change the facts. We Christians believe God made the world and the universe; you may not like it. Take it up with God next time you see God.
But the gaps are not large. Genetically, we’re a third chimpanzee species, according to some biologists. There’s not much difference between humans and chimps. And that’s after seven million years of evolution. We look a lot different, we have much different societies, but the “gap” in evolution is tiny. In that gap, from our common ancestor, we have no fewer than 20 different species of humans, covering about 5 million years. There are probably more species yet to be found, and I wager there are a dozen or more that never fossilized in any form. So, a rational estimate would be there are 50 species between humans and the ancestor we share in common with chimpanzees, and those 50 species occupy a bare 5 million years.
Who said there is a big gap? Prove it. I don’t think it’s so.
There are significant transitional species in those gaps, too. Jellyfish, for example, are single-cell organisms in colonies, mostly. It’s almost impossible to draw a line between where a jellyfish is a mere colony of single cells, and when it slips over the line into being a multicelled organism. (Plus, jelly fish lack brains and nervous systems, but have working light-sensitive patches that they use to orient themselves in the ocean — all of that is said to be impossible by ICR graduates and other creationists; it’s quite humorous when you think about it).
Evolution has been observed in real time, in all the stages Darwin worried about, in greater detail than Darwin ever thought possible. What is it you think you should be seeing that is not being seen? Be specific.
Have you looked in the journals to see?
One key problem is that with life now so diverse and filling almost every available niche — precisely because evolution does occur constantly and continuously — any organism that mutated to fill a new niche would most likely be gobbled up by a predator if it didn’t have several advantages over the organisms it tries to replace.
In short, there are very few niches for colonies to evolve into.
When a niche becomes vacant, evolution occurs at astounding rates. See Weiner’s book, The Beak of the Finch. It documents the evolution you claim you haven’t seen. I suspect you simply have not had access to the journals and science books that do the accurate reporting. I’ll wager you’ve got a lot of creationist dreck coming your way. Creationists have much better marketing mechanisms than science. Creationism exists to sell books; science is looking to solve mysteries of life, energy, and existence. They don’t actually compete in the same business. If you want to see evolution, you have to go to where the scientists work to see it.
Every form ever fossilized is a transitional. I’m not sure you’re clear on what a transitional is, or what it should look like.
Now I’m sure you don’t understand what a transitional species is. I’m not sure what you’re looking for, but there are thousands of transitional species know. We know of about 600 different species of elephant, for example, from about the size of a pig (not hog), to giants considerably larger than the modern three species. Their noses also cover a wide range of sizes, shapes and forms, as do many other parts of their anatomy. (I’m rather fond of the “shovel-tusked” varieties myself.)
With 600 transitional species in elephants, again I wonder, how many would fit the creationists’ mystical, constantly-changing-to-avoid- admitting- the-facts, “enough?”
That would be one very ill-informed person. There are no fewer than a dozen transitionals. The transitions are often very subtle. Think about it: We have all the same organs as other apes. How much evolution is required? Bigger butt muscles to stand upright, arms shorten, fur diminishes, a few cubic centimeters extra gray matter in the frontal lobes, a modification of the voice box, lose the ability to manufacture vitamin C . . . what is it you expect to see?
Of course, every transitional is a “form in its own right.” Who misinformed you otherwise? If a transitional species were not successful, it would not survive. Natural selection would push it into the fossil bin of prehistory.
So, let me understand this: You’re looking for monsters that are not successful? Maybe that’s why you don’t see transitional species. They are not monsters. They are successful. And they are plentiful in fossils. It helps to understand how evolution works. I’m beginning to think you’re fuzzy on the ideas. Am I right?
December 21, 07 at 5:49 am
Directed primarily at Bobcu, I thought this would interest you, since you seek something compelling.
Atheism “explains” that the universe began with a sudden, almost infinite, burst of energy called the “Big Bang.” But science can’t tell us where this energy came from, why it got together and exploded at that particular moment-nor how out of a giant explosion the orderly arrangement, from molecules to galaxies, occurred.
Atheism faces dozens of “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” conundrums that stop evolution before it can even start. For example, DNA (deoxyribonucleic acid) is what makes protein, yet DNA is itself made of protein. So, which came first: the DNA that makes protein or the protein out of which DNA is made?
There is no life without DNA, but DNA itself has life. What came first, the DNA that is essential for life or the life that is essential for DNA? Living cells are made up of incredibly complex nano-chemical machinery, and and some of this machinery synthesizes DNA, so which came first, the DNAwithout which there would be no cell or the cell without which there could be no DNA?
The problem of “origins” is one of the major questions for which science has no answer. The most amazing thing in the universe is life, but science neither knows from whence life comes nor what it is. There is no life without enzymes, although they themselves are not living things. And there are no enzymes without life because it takes life to produce them. Which came first-the enzymes without which there can be no life or the life without which there can be no enzymes? The enzymes that make the amino acid histidine contain histidine. Which came first-the histidine or the enzymes that manufacture it, which themselves contain histidine?
Many different enzymes are required to translate the genetic infon-nation encoded on the DNA. Yet the enzymes are themselves encoded by DNA. Thus, the genetic code cannot be translated except by products of translation. This is a vicious circle that allows for only one conclusion: the molecules that encode the information and those that decode it existed simultaneously from the beginning. That fact cannot be explained by any gradual natural process. It requires an act of creation by God. Yet the major motive of Darwin (who knew nothing of DNA) was to prove that God was not needed to explain life and the universe.
As noted, the incredible nano-chemical machinery in the cell is responsible for synthesizing DNA. But it is the DNA that carries the code that constructs and operates the cellular machinery. Which came first, the DNA that carries the information for producing each cell or the machinery in the cell produced by DNA, which must first make the DNA? Obviously, both had to exist simultaneously from the very beginning or neither would exist. That fact requires a creative act of God.
The genetic code has vital editing machinery, which is itself encoded in the DNA. What came first, the machinery that edits DNA or the DNA that produces the editing machinery?
Again, the DNA molecule is made of protein; but it is the DNA by which alone protein is produced. DNA cannot function without at least 75 preexisting proteins-but only DNA can produce these 75 proteins. The machinery to convert the DNA information into the protein is itself made of the protein it alone can produce. There is only one sensible answer to the classic question, “Which came first?” Obviously, God.
The Law of Biogenesis, which Pasteur (Proved, states, “Life only comes from life.” That ended the superstition of “spontaneous generation”.The alleged Big Bang would have sterilized everything a trillion times over, making it impossible for any life to exist thereafter.
How could life come out of death? Of Jesus Christ, one with the Father, who created everything, the Bible says, “in him was life” (Jn 1:4)
Please share comments without vulgarity.
.
December 21, 07 at 6:48 am
We are now getting our significant challenge to the law of biogenesis. While in the past, the furthest along was creating amino acids for non-living substances, just yesterday there was a significant article in the Washington Post about synthetic DNA. Here’s the article. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/16/AR2007121601900.html
This is a big leap toward creating life in a test tube.
The proof for the law of Biogensis was that life from non-life has never been observed in nature. It looks like we are only years away from a major rewrite to this law or tossing it out.
And the law is only based on observations on Earth. We can’t necessarily conclude that elsewhere in the universe it’s different. Anyone for silcone based life?
December 21, 07 at 7:05 am
U.S. Senate Report: Over 400 Prominent Scientists Disputed Man-Made Global Warming Claims in 2007. http://tinyurl.com/2hmrer
q/
“In October, the Washington Post Staff Writer Juliet Eilperin conceded the obvious, writing that climate skeptics “appear to be expanding rather than shrinking.” Many scientists from around the world have dubbed 2007 as the year man-made global warming fears “bites the dust.” ” u/q
December 21, 07 at 8:34 am
Follow-up to wits0`s comment:
Over 400 prominent scientists from more than two dozen countries recently voiced significant objections to major aspects of the so-called “consensus” on man-made global warming. These scientists, many of whom are current and former participants in the UN IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change), criticized the climate claims made by the UN IPCC and former Vice President Al Gore.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=f80a6386-802a-23ad-40c8-3c63dc2d02cb
December 21, 07 at 8:36 am
Axlotl tanks are a technology in the fictional Dune universe created by Frank Herbert in the Dune series. Axlotl technology is also mentioned in Herbert’s novel Destination: Void but not elaborated upon. The name presumably refers to the axolotl, an aquatic salamander native to Mexico renowned for its regenerative abilities.
Axlotl tanks are produced (and initially monopolized) by the Bene Tleilax to serve as wombs in which a ghola (a kind of clone, specifically the clone of someone who has died) can be grown; in later books, the axlotl tanks have been engineered to be capable of producing the spice melange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axlotl_tank
December 21, 07 at 9:57 am
Are you trying to say that science fiction is becoming reality?
December 21, 07 at 11:04 am
I posted a significant response this morning — are you holding it for a reason?
December 21, 07 at 11:10 am
Steve,
Remember that old TV series `Thunderbirds` – much of it became reality.
December 21, 07 at 12:27 pm
The Thunderbirds became South Park’s Team America.
December 21, 07 at 6:05 pm
Attempt #2
Where to begin?
Every individual is a transitional, technically. My point was that there are lots of transitionals that show the transitions. But regardless how many there are, bullsh—-rs always say “not enough!” Niles Eldredge has a collection of more than 2,000 trilobites covering 300 million years of evolution. In those fossils one can trace the rise of antennae. One can trace the evolution of eyes on the critters. Almost every step of evolution of everything is visible in the fossils.
But you claim there’s not enough transitionals.
What’s enough? Creationists used to argue that there were not fossils of ancient whales, so whales were said to falsify evolution. Then, in Pakistan, in the former Tethys Sea, paleontologists got a great specimen of ambulocetus, a mammal that lived probably mostly in the water, preyed on other creatures, and had the features of a whale relative.
“Not enough!” creationists shouted. “That’s only one! There is no link from that one to modern whales!”
When the PBS series on evolution was first broadcast and Carl Zimmer’s companion book came out, it included all the latest finds — seven transitional species known between ambulocetus and modern whales, clearly showing the gradual transition of feet to bone vestiges, tail to flukes, nostrils to blowhole, landlubber ears to whale ears, etc., etc., etc.
Did any creationist admit it at the time? No.
I attended a lecture by Kenneth Miller a few weeks ago. He noted he’d given a speech in Connecticut, in Carl Zimmer’s home town, and since Miller had pirated the chart from Zimmer’s book showing the seven transitionals, he made note of that fact and complimented Zimmer’s work (proper attribution, in other words). You can see Zimmer’s chart here:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/2/11/8440/49578
After the presentation, Miller said, who should approach him but Carl Zimmer. They had not met previously. They exchanged pleasantries, talked about the reactions to the presentation, and then Zimmer dropped the bomb on him: “That chart’s not accurate,” Zimmer said.
“Now there are 23 transitionals known.”
Here’s a chart from Zimmer showing more of the transitionals. Evolution is clear from this chart, and especially from viewing the specimens of the fossils (plus, there’s a novel little puzzle that the molecular guys solved before it was understood, which confirms evolution yet one more way, by DNA): [see next post]
Sure, there are a lot of links possible. Some may never be found (fossilization is rare, remember). But considering that fossilization is rare, that we have already got so many transitionals in so many different genera, the quantity of fossil transitional species alone is unrebutted, and I would say irrefutable, proof of evolution.
If one doesn’t want the universe to be as it is, for whatever nefarious or even noble reason, of course, one may continue to try to deny it. Facts are stubborn things. Fossils are stubborn, too, and often made of rock. Our wishes for a different universe cannot change the facts. We Christians believe God made the world and the universe; you may not like it. Take it up with God next time you see God.
But the gaps are not large. Genetically, we’re a third chimpanzee species, according to some biologists. There’s not much difference between humans and chimps. And that’s after seven million years of evolution. We look a lot different, we have much different societies, but the “gap” in evolution is tiny. In that gap, from our common ancestor, we have no fewer than 20 different species of humans, covering about 5 million years. There are probably more species yet to be found, and I wager there are a dozen or more that never fossilized in any form. So, a rational estimate would be there are 50 species between humans and the ancestor we share in common with chimpanzees, and those 50 species occupy a bare 5 million years.
Who said there is a big gap? Prove it. I don’t think it’s so.
There are significant transitional species in those gaps, too. Jellyfish, for example, are single-cell organisms in colonies, mostly. It’s almost impossible to draw a line between where a jellyfish is a mere colony of single cells, and when it slips over the line into being a multicelled organism. (Plus, jelly fish lack brains and nervous systems, but have working light-sensitive patches that they use to orient themselves in the ocean — all of that is said to be impossible by ICR graduates and other creationists; it’s quite humorous when you think about it).
Evolution has been observed in real time, in all the stages Darwin worried about, in greater detail than Darwin ever thought possible. What is it you think you should be seeing that is not being seen? Be specific.
Have you looked in the journals to see?
One key problem is that with life now so diverse and filling almost every available niche — precisely because evolution does occur constantly and continuously — any organism that mutated to fill a new niche would most likely be gobbled up by a predator if it didn’t have several advantages over the organisms it tries to replace.
In short, there are very few niches for colonies to evolve into.
When a niche becomes vacant, evolution occurs at astounding rates. See Weiner’s book, The Beak of the Finch. It documents the evolution you claim you haven’t seen. I suspect you simply have not had access to the journals and science books that do the accurate reporting. I’ll wager you’ve got a lot of creationist dreck coming your way. Creationists have much better marketing mechanisms than science. Creationism exists to sell books; science is looking to solve mysteries of life, energy, and existence. They don’t actually compete in the same business. If you want to see evolution, you have to go to where the scientists work to see it.
Every form ever fossilized is a transitional. I’m not sure you’re clear on what a transitional is, or what it should look like.
Now I’m sure you don’t understand what a transitional species is. I’m not sure what you’re looking for, but there are thousands of transitional species know. We know of about 600 different species of elephant, for example, from about the size of a pig (not hog), to giants considerably larger than the modern three species. Their noses also cover a wide range of sizes, shapes and forms, as do many other parts of their anatomy. (I’m rather fond of the “shovel-tusked” varieties myself.)
With 600 transitional species in elephants, again I wonder, how many would fit the creationists’ mystical, constantly-changing-to-avoid- admitting- the-facts, “enough?”
That would be one very ill-informed person. There are no fewer than a dozen transitionals. The transitions are often very subtle. Think about it: We have all the same organs as other apes. How much evolution is required? Bigger butt muscles to stand upright, arms shorten, fur diminishes, a few cubic centimeters extra gray matter in the frontal lobes, a modification of the voice box, lose the ability to manufacture vitamin C . . . what is it you expect to see?
Of course, every transitional is a “form in its own right.” Who misinformed you otherwise? If a transitional species were not successful, it would not survive. Natural selection would push it into the fossil bin of prehistory.
So, let me understand this: You’re looking for monsters that are not successful? Maybe that’s why you don’t see transitional species. They are not monsters. They are successful. And they are plentiful in fossils. It helps to understand how evolution works. I’m beginning to think you’re fuzzy on the ideas. Am I right?
December 21, 07 at 6:06 pm
Second URL from post above, to see the chart with more than 20 “transitionals” in the whale line:
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/evolution/
(You’ll have to do a search for “whale” and look for the chart; Zimmer’s moved from corante to the Seed stable of science blogs, and the old archives here are kinda unwieldy if your RAM isn’t massive.)
December 24, 07 at 5:03 am
Merry Christmas, Scott Thong, and keep them burning and coming!
(Psst, I never wish anyone ‘Happy Holidays, that’s rather insulting, with the political correctness built in.)
December 24, 07 at 5:58 pm
Sorry Ed. Was away for a few days, and Akismet caught your comment for approval.
Merry Christmas to you too wits0! Enjoy the day off which we are still allowed to enjoy.
December 24, 07 at 7:21 pm
Nice to know there was no malice!
You get the day off? You’re not a teacher, or a parent?
December 24, 07 at 10:06 pm
Wakakakaka! Holiday from office work.
Christmas is still respected as a Christian holiday here in official-religion-Islam Malaysia. The irony of it when the Land of the Free is banning even the mention of the word Christmas.
http://www.moonbattery.com/archives/2007/12/southwestern_ok.html
December 25, 07 at 12:24 am
It’s difficult to see, from Dallas, whether you had your tongue in your cheek or not.
So I looked it up — Oklahoma’s AG banning “Merry Christmas?” It would be more likely he’d issue a call for children from Oklahoma to go take Jerusalem from the Moors.
You can read the Associated Press story here:
http://www.chickashanews.com/local/local_story_355101723.html
December 25, 07 at 1:06 am
[...] Tip of the old scrub brush to Burning Hot (see comments) [...]
December 25, 07 at 12:18 pm
Sorry, forgot the :p
The third comment at the link clears it up as debunked, if anyone took a closer look.
But it does seem that contrary to the proclaimed principles of freedom of speech and freedom of religion, Christian beliefs and traditions are being singled out for opposition while other religions are tolerated or even tacitly promoted.
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/07/24/american-civil-liberties-union-religious-bias/
Why? What is the logic of liberals demonizing modern Christians as potential megalomaniacal, murderous fascists while simultaneously supporting groups who really demonstrate megalomaniacal, murderous and fascistic tendencies?
It doesn’t make sense to my muddled, unliberal mind.
December 25, 07 at 4:39 pm
Mindful of the distinction between proving and persuading, I offer these 29+ evidences for so-called macroevolution: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Also we can observe speciation today in “ring species,” which are species with a geographic distribution that forms a ring and overlaps at the ends. For instance, the many subspecies of Ensatina salamanders in California exhibit subtle morphological and genetic differences all along their range on both sides of the San Joaquin Valley. They all interbreed with their immediate neighbors with one exception. Where the extreme ends of the range overlap in Southern California, E. klauberi and E. eschscholtzii do not interbreed. So where do we mark the point of speciation? See http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_05.html
Oh, and there’s rutabaga, a species derived through hybridization of two other species–a cabbage and a turnip. While hybrids typically are sterile and thus don’t really qualify as species, such is not the case with respect to rutabaga. It is a true species.
December 25, 07 at 5:17 pm
The info is coming thick and useful, and I’m learning a lot… I shall go through the comments slowly and decipher what I can. Thanks for the info and links!
December 26, 07 at 8:36 am
Ed, your info about transitionals interests me, particularly the trilobite collection and the pre-whales such as ambulocetus. Do you have any links, especially with pics so I can take a look for myself?
The Daily Kos chart is interesting, but I’m more interested in the actual fossils – I quite dislike the paleontologist habit of constructing, sketching out and sensationally declaring an entire life form from one toe bone and a tooth.
And to clarify: I honestly and truthfully have nothing against evolution philosophically per se, no gut reaction against the idea of it or anything like that. I just want to be more convinced, and you’ve been greatly helping.
December 26, 07 at 8:48 am
Photos of the fossils? Hmmm.
Laelaps has a lot of good stuff on such things. Here’s a post where you may be able to follow the links.
http://laelaps.wordpress.com/2007/08/24/everyone-back-in-the-pool-from-artiodactyl-to-cetacean/
Check Ray Sutera’s paper at Talk.origins.
December 26, 07 at 8:56 am
Carl Zimmer has a a couple of very complete posts on the topic, like this one:
http://www.corante.com/loom/archives/2005/09/22/the_steps_of_the_puzzle.php
From that post, he links to this one, which shows the actual bones:
http://www.neoucom.edu/DEPTS/ANAT/Locomotion.htm
That’s Dr. Thewissen’s page, and he has most of the best photos of most of the best bones. Noodle around there and see what you find.
The trilobites are partly pictured in Niles Eldredge’s book, The Triumph of Evolution, and the Failure of Creationism.
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=5ptOImSAPuUC&dq=%22niles+eldredge%22+triumph&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=F_S7ALOIIx&sig=KQ4_duj-pg7BMJr27CkuBZvY1uo
December 26, 07 at 9:17 am
Go here:
http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&id=5ptOImSAPuUC&dq=%22niles+eldredge%22+triumph&printsec=frontcover&source=web&ots=F_S7ALOIIx&sig=KQ4_duj-pg7BMJr27CkuBZvY1uo#PPA197,M1
Go to page 197, and read the note that starts there and cover the next page or so.
December 27, 07 at 10:14 am
Here are some considerations when attempting to compare DNA”s and make comparisons of similarities in order to biuld the case for evolution:
DNA- It has been said that a chimp’s DNA is 98% similar to a human. Humans have 3 billion base pairs of DNA information in each cell. A 2% difference is equal to a 60 million base pair difference from a chimp.Not exactly a close match!
Chemistry- A series of tests were made to determine man’s closest relationships using chemical analysis of various body fluids. Man’s closest relationship in blood chemistry was the chimpanzee, in milk-the jackass, in cholesterol-the garter snake, in tear enzyme-the chicken, and in blood antigen A-the butterbean. Why has this has confused evolutionists?Scott, I think you and many others, confuse adaptation and variation with evolution. I certainly believe in these, and the proof is everywhere. But it’s a far cry from a germ becoming a human. The major distinction is that evolution attempts to convince that one kind of organism can change into something entirely different (something never proven) versus the ability to adapt and change within a kind (something very real). Big Difference!
December 27, 07 at 1:22 pm
PZ Meyers has offered a long list of links to places to find credible information and evidence on evolution. http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2006/06/ann_coulter_no_evidence_for_ev.php
December 27, 07 at 3:07 pm
I’m not too convinced about whale evolution. While the story seems nice and all that, it isn’t exactly that convincing because there are some holes in it. Read it here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re1/chapter5.asp
In summary, the site describes how only parts of skeletons were found, and other bones taken from 5 metres away were added on to form a ‘transitional form’. The irreconciliable differences between the so-called ‘transitional forms’ are also neglected in most scholarly discussions. Apparently, scientific ‘consensus’ is enough to make anything ‘truth’.
Evolution textbooks are also accused of intentionally hiding the flaws, such as by not providing an accurate scale that would show the huge size difference between the so-called transitional forms. I’d like to see a truly neutral textbook of evolution. So far, it seems that all of them are written with a definite slant towards the theory being more of a law than just a theory.
As an example, compare the Answers In Genesis expose with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_cetaceans which portrays the ‘whale of a story’ as neat, tidy and problem free. It has lots of nicely drawn pictures of fanciful creatures but no mention of the fact that they are mostly based on just a few bone fragments and unrelated bits.
Why do evolutionists love to do this – create entire species and family trees by sticking together unrelated bones, like how Archaeoraptor fooled the so-called scientific world? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeoraptor
How is Archaeoraptor’s fallacy of joining unrelated bones together to form a ‘transitional’ any different from joining together bones which are highly likely to be unrelated to form a ‘transitional’ whale?
I’d say that this is scientific ‘creativity’ at work. People get too excited about what they seem to have discover and decide to gloss over the inconsistencies in the story.
December 28, 07 at 8:23 am
True Ronald, although I understand the clear distinction between adaptation within a kind of organism (microevolution) and evolution into an entirely different kind (macroevolution), often I don’t make myself clear on the issue. My bad.
Ed and others, any response on the Answers in Genesis claim? Particularly about sticking bones from different fossils together to ‘make’ a new one.
I recall that Brontosaurus was a result of that kind of mistake too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brontosaurus
December 29, 07 at 3:19 am
Answers in Genesis is famous among scientists for inventing hoaxes, and that looks like another one. Just five fossils? Well, no, Thewissen lists no fewer than 23 different species, and many of the individual specimens found were complete or nearly so. There are a couple hundred bones in mammals.
AiG is just wrong. Annoyingly, maliciously wrong so far as I can see. Why would they deny something so easy to check?
Here’s a Nature magazine video of Thewissen, talking about his most recent finds. Check it out. Science has video — what does AiG have?
http://www.nature.com/nature/videoarchive/ancientwhale/index.html
The claim that bones from another specimen were “added” to make a transitional form are scurrilous and false. Clearly whoever wrote that has no clue about how digs are run, how carefully bones are catalogued (especially in days of inexpensive GPS technology and solar-powered laptop computers), nor how rigorous is the vetting for accuracy of an article published describing a new species, or even a significant find of an old species.
There are more than 10,000 different species of dinosaur described in refereed literature, with more than double that awaiting description, someday, if we get enough scientists to do the work. Out of those 10,000, at least a hundred are known by hundreds or thousands of specimens. There are a lot of triceratops, for example; millions of trilobites; hadrosaurs are quite common. From these common species, we can draw the conclusions necessary to support evolution.
After that set of about a hundred, there are more than 9,000 species well described in literature, every single one of which corroborates the fact of evolution (though there is often lively debate over the exact path of evolution in a given time, in a given genera). And after that set of 10,000 species, we have thousands more. “Dinosaur Jim” Jensen left more than 250,000 significant specimens, still encased in rock awaiting the arduous laboratory work, when he retired from his post in paleontology at BYU in the early 1970s. BYU’s collection of not-yet-liberated from stone fossils was dwarfed by the one held by the University of Utah, which has been many times surpassed by the Museum of the Rockies. Three collections in three states, more than a million significant fossil specimens, all from one small area of the world.
Can we even begin to comprehend how vast is the set of evolution-corroborating fossils? By one estimate, the Karoo Formation in South Africa, from which we get the clear chain of fossils species that show the evolution of mammals from reptiles, contains enough fossils deposited over about a billion years (including just a few hundred million years with big critters larger than a speck in the water) to populate the world with a couple dozen creatures the size of a dog or larger on every acre. It’s an estimate, of course.
Incidentally, Darwin didn’t know about these fossil finds. He thought most fossils were pretty well known in his time — since then more than 95% of described fossils have been discovered, and more than 99% of fossil rich sites have been discovered. When Darwin wrote that we have to work with a very incomplete fossil record — which is true — he did not foresee that the record would include 1000 times more fossils than known in his time.
Did AiG describe any of that? No?
Then why would anyone bother to give them the time of day? There’s too much good information out there to dwell on the hoaxes and those who would hide what is easily known.
December 29, 07 at 3:25 am
Irreconcilable differences on the transitional forms? Bull feathers. The people who write that stuff have not even seen the fossils.
Try to find an article in a science journal (which would require familiarity with the fossils or the science) that makes such a claim. I can’t find one, and I’ll bet you can’t either — not in a good, juried journal where accuracy is stressed and theology is not (or perhaps more aptly, where truth is valued, and not propaganda).
December 29, 07 at 3:28 am
Here, take a look at one good news story of one good find of a trove of dinosaur fossils. How much of this can AiG deny?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E01E2D61E3EF936A15757C0A961958260
This is one find. It doesn’t include the three or four other, similar finds in China, the big egg field in Argentina, or any of the nesting site finds in America.
How much evidence is enough?
December 29, 07 at 3:33 am
By the way, didn’t you have a question on the “Cambrian Explosion” a few weeks ago?
Here’s an article that summarized what was known in 1995 or so:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C07E7DD1639F932A05753C1A963958260
December 29, 07 at 8:33 am
Perhaps the problem is that it is NOT very well known. Evolutionists, if they know they have such conclusive and plentiful evidence, need to clearly portray that to the public (by which I mean, bloggers who are used to demanding good clear proofs).
They cannot just sit back and assume that everyone else in the world knows about their findings, or that the word of a paleontologist is enough to satisfy them, or that three or four fossils photographed count as ‘plenty’.
If AiG and other groups claim that there is no conclusive evidence for evolution, it doesn’t really win the argument by dismissing them all as unscientific cranks – without showing the evidence that is claimed to be missing. Your info and links are a good example of what should be done, Ed.
December 29, 07 at 8:37 am
Btw, if the Karoo fossils are ever fully uncovered and documented, I might be fully convinced if the transitioning from reptile to mammal is shown clearly. But remember the Creationist accusation that fossils are intentionally shown out of order to protray an artifically arranged series of transitions (as the Eohippus to Horse fossil line is accused of).
January 3, 08 at 3:18 pm
A bunch of superlong article-comments that I think were meant to be at this post, at
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/badawi-will-use-isa-on-street-protestors-if-needed/#comment-19462
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/badawi-will-use-isa-on-street-protestors-if-needed/#comment-20035
and
http://scottthong.wordpress.com/2007/11/28/badawi-will-use-isa-on-street-protestors-if-needed/#comment-21548
January 4, 08 at 8:19 am
New report out from the National Academy of Sciences today; I blog about it here:
http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2008/01/03/new-report-from-national-academy-of-sciences-teach-evolution/
Basically, it says creationism has no place in school science classes.
January 7, 08 at 9:55 am
Ed, the NAS was brought into the picture as the “Big Gun” to give credence to the myth of evolution. They reek of bias so why would they be expected to say otherwise? Their significance by entering the fray is that the evolutionary myth is coming unglued and needs all the support it can muster no matter how feeble. How can an association of science promulgate and support the suppression of evidence and not show its transparent bias? Since when does science promote censorship? Why is evolution losing ground and seeing more and more scientist defections? Let me suggest that the reason is that it is being recognized as the greatest fraud and deceit of recent scientific history! Of course you and they don’t want it in the classroom as it would moreso expose the fraud and open it up to student scrutiny! Heaven forbid that such should occur. Evolutionists remain shameless at the expense of good science and students are the sacrificial lambs. Their deceit knows no bounds!
January 7, 08 at 10:43 am
NAS has been counted on to provide honest, straight, and accurate reports on science since Abraham Lincoln first asked for their opinions. Their only serious bias is towards accuracy in science. This is the same group which spurred the NSF rewrites of education standards to give the U.S. the boost in science necessary to win the Cold War. So, if they reek of bias, it’s for accuracy and for the best interests of the nation. That’s a good smell.
NAS first published this booklet in 1984, after the Arkansas trial, at a time when state legislatures were flirting with creationism. This is only an update to bring the science up to date. The policy is the same: What’s best for America. NAS does not support any suppression of evidence, but has asked for evidence contrary to their stated position. In two federal trials directly, it has been determined that there simply is no evidence in science to support creationism, in 1981 and 2005. The issue has been touched on in other litigation, notably in 1987, in the Louisiana case that went to the Supreme Court.
In all of those cases, creationists had the opportunity to win the day simply by presenting evidence they had gathered to support their position in science. In each case, it was not that the judges ruled the creationist cases wrong; rather, it was that creationists failed to present an iota of scientific research of any kind to support creationism.
How can anyone censor something that does not exist?
In point of fact, there have been two papers written on intelligent design since 1987 (that’s one paper every ten years). Both of them were published.
In the same time, we have nearly 200,000 papers on evolution.
Is there fraud? It is by those creationists who, when not under oath in federal court and not under penalty of perjury, claim that they have evidence contradicting evolution. Since when does fraud like that get a place at the table of science, or at the table of education?
Mr. Cote, if there is evidence to support creationism, please bring it forward. Write it up, and publish it in a journal — the courts have determined the journals are open to publishing such things.
Two papers in 20 years? That’s not science. That’s not academic quality.
January 9, 08 at 1:23 am
Ed, well I guess you win based on the number of papers, 200,000 to 2 is overwhelming. 200,00 lies is impressive. One “paper”, the Bible, refutes them all in one fell swoop, but who wants to believe It when you have Darwin and folks like you, ready to throw the word of God away with the bathwater! It sure must be satisfying to think that you know more than God! How pompous!
January 9, 08 at 2:11 am
I guess you’re out of things to say, so you turn to insult. I resent your cheapening of scripture in that way. We who hold the Bible sacred regard it’s teachings as important. The Bible tells us, in at least eight different stories, that God is the creator, the motivating force behind all we can see or experience in the universe — and the Bible states directly that God’s creation is good, accurate and true, trustworthy and everlasting.
If God’s creation manifests evolution, who are we to gainsay it?
Would you take offense if I gave you the Christian view in this fashion?
Excuse me if I interpret your statement as merely having run out of contrary statements. It’s the polite thing to do under the circumstances.
January 9, 08 at 2:13 am
Does anyone else have any evidence to support creationism? Mr. Cote couldn’t find any.
January 9, 08 at 6:14 am
Ed, of all people, I expected you to be the last to make such a hideous statement as that I would urinate on the Bible! You have succeeded in scraping the bottom of the barrel and apparently have no sense of shame or civility. I pity you! In your desperation and angst to offend me, you showed your true colors. You could not have been more offensive nor ignorant.
January 9, 08 at 6:22 am
You accuse me of trashing the Bible, and when I ask if you’d be offended if I accused you, you jump to conclusions.
If you fail to recognize that I simply put the issue the opposite of the way you phrased it, you need to look again.
I could not be more ignorant? You get to accuse me unfairly, and you don’t see a problem?
I’ll accept your apology any time. Holler if you need help with that log. It’s obviously blinding you to the evidence you think you don’t need.
January 9, 08 at 10:30 am
Ed,you include Ken Ham and I as part of a blasphemous and sacriligeous contextural statement and expect me to apologize? What kind of dementia is that? Not in a million years. That is sick!
January 9, 08 at 11:32 am
Explain to me why it is that your statement is neither blasphemous and sacriligeous, but when I substitute your name, my hypothetical statement is.
Your double standard is astounding. You take offense. Why should I not take offense at your wrongful assumptions, and your blasphemous, sacriligeous statement? I don’t understand why you think you can insult others with impunity. It’s a sort of blind, hypocritical hubris.
And then you ask what kind of dementia it is? I don’t know. I don’t have dementia. I merely turned the table on you.
January 11, 08 at 3:37 am
Ed, reread my Jan 9 blogs. you flatter yourself to think that you are able to turn the tables on me. More wishful, empty hoping!
January 11, 08 at 12:29 pm
I stand by my statements: Ron, you’re copping out.
I pointed out there is no science behind ID — two papers in 20 years, one of which was retracted by the publisher. You immediately turned to insult, rather than try to defend ID. You then wrote:
Of course, those 200,000 papers went through peer review. Your calling them lies is crass and uncalled for. Some of the papers note cures for cancer. Many of them note treatments for HIV/AIDS. You make only the rude accusation without an iota of evidence.
Of course the Bible is not a scientific paper. You insult the Bible when you make such claims.
As a Christian, I resent your claim. It’s false, it’s crass and crude. It’s profane. Shame on you.
Res ipsa loquitur. Got a mirror?
January 16, 08 at 3:44 am
Ed, 2 papers refuting two whole scientific books by Behe and you claim no science for ID. WOW, That’s a stretch and I’ll bet the papers were from reliable open minded scientists, too, If you lie and I as a scientist peer review it does that take away the lie?
The bible is not a scientific document it only happens to be the word of God who has established all of science and the natural laws that make it all work. There are no natural laws, per se, only those established by God that nature obeys.
I don’t know what claim you resent, so it’s hard for me to be shameful, please elucidate.
My pomposity is based not on knowing more than God, but by knowing God. Upon what do you base yours?
January 16, 08 at 7:54 am
No. Two papers supporting ID. Neither by Behe. Two papers total, in more than 20 years. There are more papers and more reviews refuting Behe than there are papers supporting ID.
If you want papers on Behe’s book, there are probably a half dozen, all pointing out his errors. There are another two dozen reviews by scientists, all of them negative. I don’t know what Behe’s “lies” as a scientist do, but certainly his inaccuracy in researching the literature, the claims that scientists “don’t have a clue” about things that are well known, did him no good either in print or on the witness stand.
You’re making extravagant claims for the Bible, beyond what the Bible makes, and beyond reasonableness. We Christians believe we can find the Word of God in the Bible, but not everything in it is the Word of God, and actually very little of it is even the words of God. Evolution’s originators started with a faith in God way beyond anything any creationist has, believing that God is the Creator and that God does no deception in creation. So natural laws are obeyed, scientists said, rather than violated constantly as creationism requires.
So, from my view, even an atheist scientist who studies evolution exhibits more faith in God than any creationist. While they claim it is not faith, but merely recognition of the evidence presented by God, you and your fellow creationists reject it.
In ancient times, up through the early 20th century, Christians were rather unanimous that creation is another testament of God. I think that is sound theology. Creationism rejects that testament, however.
So I find it ironic that you claim to know God, while calling God’s creation false. You know God by rejecting God’s personal testament, the creation He made with His own hands? Interesting.
Not science. Not Christian. But interesting.
January 16, 08 at 12:47 pm
Oh the irony!
“My pomposity is based not on knowing more than God, but by knowing God”
Goodness!
Knowing God is supposed to deflate someone of their pomposity, not fill them up with it!
January 20, 08 at 1:29 am
Jamie, you may be right. I do not mean to be pompous and my failure is one of semantics. I was including “confidence ” as my definition of “pomposity” . As a biologist, Christian and Creationist, I do have all the confidence in the world of the validity of Creation with this assurance resulting from faith as well as scientific knowledge and understanding. Thanks for your insight!
February 1, 08 at 8:20 pm
http://tinyfrog.wordpress.com/creationismevolution/
February 4, 08 at 7:19 pm
“What evidence is there that firmly demonstrates the occurrence of
[macro-]evolution in the past or present?”
First my assumptions:
Definition 1) Micro-evolution includes adaptation within a recognizable kind of
life form.
Definition 2) Macro-evolution excludes adaptation within a recognizable kind of
life form.
Assumption 1) For the purposes of this argument, we may assume that
micro-evolution, as defined in Definition 1, has happened in specific cases.
Justification: The question specifies that “micro-evolution, i.e. adaptation
within a recognizable kind of life form, is a given.”
Then some claimed facts:
Fact 1) The following species have all existed on earth at some point:
Hyracotherium, Mesohippus, Merychippus, Pliohippus, Equus (modern horse).
Evidence: They have all been dug up from the ground (for pictures, see
http://chem.tufts.edu/science/evolution/HorseEvolution.htm).
Fact 2) The Hyracotherium and the Equus cannot be said to be “within a
recognizable kind of life form” as per the meaning in Definition 1. Evidence:
(1) by visual inspection of the skeletons (see the above link) and (2) by the
fact that Hyracotherium remains, when first found, were mistaken for those of
a Hyrax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyracotherium). (If you disagree with
Fact 2, please tell me the maximum set of differences between two species you
are willing to accept as “within a recognizable kind of life form”, so that I
an patch up my argument by providing a longer genealogy.)
Fact 3A) The Hyracotherium and the Mesohippus can be said to be “within a
recognizable kind of life form” as per the meaning in Definition 1. Evidence:
(1) Again, look at the skeletons. (2) If I tried to show you these two species
as an example of evolution, you would likely respond that they merely
exemplify micro-evolution, not macro-evolution. (3) There are breeds of dogs
that are more different than the Hyracotherium and Mesohippus, yet we know
that the different breeds of dogs micro-evolved through artificial selection
by humans.
Fact 3B) Likewise for the Mesohippus and the Merychippus.
Fact 3C) Likewise for the Merychippus and the Pliohippus.
Fact 3D) Likewise for the Pliohippus and the Equus.
Finally, the logic:
Proposition 1A) By Assumption 1, Fact 1, and Fact 3A, we may claim that
Mesohippus has micro-evolved from the Hyracotherium.
Proposition 1B) Likewise, by Assumption 1, Fact 1, and Fact 3B, the Merychippus
has micro-evolved from the Pliohippus.
Proposition 1C) Likewise, the Pliohippus has micro-evolved from the Merychippus.
Proposition 1D) Likewise, the Equus has micro-evolved from the Pliohippus.
Proposition 2) By Proposition 1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D, the Equus has micro-evolved
from the Hyracotherium.
Proposition 3) By Proposition 2 and Fact 2, micro-evolution is not limited to
species within a recognizable kind of life form.
Proposition 4) By Assumption 1, we may assume that micro-evolution has happened,
and by Proposition 3, such evolution was shown not to be limited to species
within a recognizable kind of life form. Then, by Definition 2,
macro-evolution, too, has happened.
By Proposition 4, macro-evolution has happened.
October 25, 08 at 2:48 pm
get sporting tickets online…
get sporting tickets online…
April 19, 09 at 2:22 pm
[...] Please Cite Me the Evidence for Evolution and Global Warming … [...]
March 2, 10 at 3:20 am
[...] On issues like global warming and evolution, scientists need to speak up – washingtonpost.com Please Cite Me the Evidence for Evolution and Global Warming BUUUUURRRRNING HOT __________________ "A Life Without Purpose Is A Life That Has Been [...]
May 20, 11 at 3:34 pm
FROM APE TO MAN | simonthongwh
simonthongwh.wordpress.com
When the phrase “human evolution” is used, these are probably the first images to pop into people’s minds. Despite the iconic status and widespread use of these images, they are not based on factual evidence, but on imagination. This series of drawings are exactly that, imagination of artists at wor