Theory of Evolution Should have never been a part of this game!

[Lincoln]

"Why do so many Christians base their faith upon such tenuous grounds as the validity of a scientific theory concerning the material world?"

My faith is not based on that. If other's do then I cannot speak for them. True Christian faith is the "substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen."

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Lincoln
I was addressing Etheired's claim that there was " EXACTLY one case of fraud". I do not dispute real evidence.

Then you accept that life has evolved in the general sense over billions of years? You only disagree on natural selection?

[Lincoln]

"Then you accept that life has evolved in the general sense over billions of years? You only disagree on natural selection?"

No, I actually agree with natural selection. And I do not know what took place over billions of years. True evidence however that is not the result of fraud or subjective interpretation must be considered. I try to do that. I have read several interpretations of the fossil record etc. but I really do not know what happened. I usually do not argue for or against a young earth or the exact nature of creation because I would only be speculating like everyone else.

[MrBaggins]

The big issue with Quantum theory isn’t so much Quatum Field Theory itself, as that the reality that there are infinities is incompatible with General Relativity. Special Relativity is the precursor to both General Relativity and Quantum Theory. Quantum Mechanics is a precursor to QFT too… and that has the issue of Measurement problems – it precludes measurement by its very nature.

We know that there is a firm basis for both QFT and QM. So firm, in fact, that principals of both are rapidly being used to among other things engineer processors at tiny scale, and to develop advanced secure computing and incredibly capable cryptography, right now, as we discuss this topic.

The issue isn’t if Quantum Effects exist. Its how we integrate them into classical science, and if can figure out how to measure something that resists being measured.

Many prominent physicists are hugely supportive of QT as it relates to infinite states, since it solves more problems than it breaks. There are always skeptics… Einstein was one, however… you can only look so far outside the box…

Also, the mathematics solutions developed for QT initially shed light on the inadequacy of current mathematics for dealing with the subjects.

[Jack_www]

I really have not had the time to read all the posts people have made. Some of the logic people use in here does not make any sense to me. I know that people look at the fossil record this is the general order of how life appears in the fossil record. First single cell life in sea, then fishes and other types of sea life appear. After this plant life on land appears as well as first land animals, and then animals that can fly. Up further in fossil record you get man. This is just a very, very brief summary. I can see how people could look at the fossil record and say this is evolution in action. We start of with single cell life and see it evolve into the life we see today, although we do not have all details of how it evolved, it sure seems as strong evidence in support of evolution. However, to me this does not in my mind.

Creation model can explain it just as well; this was the order that life was created. Almost every form of life appears suddenly in fossil record. Many scientists do admit there are many gaps. How many I don’t know. One example is of flight. All animals that have wings could all fly. There is no record to how they were able to evolve these wings. Scientist have formed some interesting hypothesis, but it is hard to test them when first there is no record in the fossil record, we can't see directly some form of life evolving wings in nature.

Many claim life is self-assembling. This is hard for me to believe. Odds are too great. I know of an experiment that is said to have produced self reproducing molecules in the lab, but the only one I know of was done in 1998, and I made an honest search to find out if any further progress was made, and I could not find it. That makes me wonder. Anther question I have is could such self-reproducing molecule formed in the conditions most scientist believe to existed when this first molecule was believed to have formed? I doubt this molecule could evolve into DNA some time down the line. No one has shown how this could have taken place, a complete picture. All scientist have are pieces of the picture they think exists. There is no fossil evidence of this process, I know that it would be highly unlikely that this first molecules could ever get fossilized, so I am not trying to use this as proof they never existed. No one has been able to observe this process in nature. And with experiments in lab, no one has been able to get a single cell life to come about how they theorize as it happened. This theory on who life came about form non living matter does not seem to have much of a strong backing, and to me is still a hypothesis that has not been able to be tested completely by the scientific method.

There have been many examples of fraud and miss interruption of fossil, which have been at one time said to be missing links to human evolution. Analyzing fossils is not a perfect science, and mistakes can be made, and in fact major mistakes have been made, and some very few people have engaged in out right fraud.
Therefore, I would say to be careful when trying to use fossil record in supporting evolution, and not accept every thing you hear or read on the subject, which I would think would be good advice when looking at sources to support any thing that you are arguing.

With the flood, since MrBaggins keeps brining it up, lets go over the evidence and see if the Flood recorded in the Bible could have really happened.

[Jack the Bodiless]

Lincoln:

A little food for thought below I will post several more disputed and fraudulent claims made concerning the fossil record if anyone is actually interested in something than rhetoric here:

OK, let's have a look at those.

Australopithecine: not a missing link, but an extinct ape. Dr. Charles Oxnard, U. of Chicago says, " These fossils clearly differ more from both humans and African apes, than these two living groups from each other. The Australopithecines are unique." (Fossils, Teeth, and Sex: New Perspectives on human evolution; Seattle U. of Wash Press)

The entire scientific community accepts that the australopithecines are hominid ancestors: bipedal apes with numerous "human" features. Any traits unique to the australopithecines doesn't change that. The australopithecines remain as "links" (though not "missing" ones).

Lucy has been compared to modem pygmy chimpanzees. Paleontologist Adrienne Zihlman, Univ. of Cal at Santa Cruz Lucy's fossil remains match up remarkably well with the bones of a pygmy chimp,(although there are some differences)). Adrienne Zihlman, "Pygmy chimps and pundits", New Scientist Vol 104 #1430 Nov 15, 1984 P.39-40

Yes, Lucy is similar to a chimpanzee: there are "some differences" (bipedality, dentition) because she was in the process of becoming human. Note that no non-creationist is claiming that Lucy WAS a pygmy chimpanzee.

Homo habilis was once called a missing link between Australopithecus and homo erectus, and a missing link between ape and man. Current conclusions are a chimpanzee, orangutan, or an Australopithecine. (Albert W. Mehlert, "Homo Habilis Dethroned", Contrast: The creation evolution controversy Vol 6 #6)

Homo habilis was not a chimpanzee or orangutan. Who is Albert Mehlert?

Sianthropus, or Peking Man, was found in China in the 20's and 30's...

Peking Man was Homo Erectus. Who is Ian Taylor? What sort of book is "In the Minds of Men: Darwin and the World Order"? Are we talking New World Order, Evil Atheist Conspiracy, Black Helicopters etc?

Pithecanthropus, or Java Man, is based solely on the evidence of a skull cap dug up in 1891 on the banks of the Solo River in Java and a femur that was dug up 50 feet away and year later. It is claimed that the finder, Eugene Dubois, admitted the skull cap was from a gibbon like ape.

There have been other Java Man finds. The "gibbon" claim is a creationist-garbled reference to the fact that some scientists once believed gibbons to be our immediate ancestors: Dubois never claimed that Java Man was a gibbon. I suggest you read "Java Man", by Curtis, Swisher and Lewin. There is no doubt among modern scientists that Java Man, like Peking Man, is Homo Erectus: the only recent change of opinion is that Homo Erectus is now thought to have survived in Java until relatively recent times (like the Neanderthals of Europe), making them comtemporary with Homo Sapiens for a while.

The above is typical of the disputes and the outright fraud that pervades the "fact" of evolution. I have hundreds more...

Yes, they ARE typical: they are not frauds at all! Scientists are constantly working to refine the picture of human ancestry, and details such as timescales and precise lines of descent are under constant review. I have no doubt that you can provide "hundreds more" creationist attempts to twist this into some sort of "scientific controversy" about the evolution of humans from apes, but there is still no scientific dispute about the fact that humans DID evolve from apes. There is also no dispute that the hominids are a part of this picture.

The only "fraud" occurring here is creationist fraud.

[Jack the Bodiless]

I know that people look at the fossil record this is the general order of how life appears in the fossil record. First single cell life in sea, then fishes and other types of sea life appear. After this plant life on land appears as well as first land animals, and then animals that can fly. Up further in fossil record you get man. This is just a very, very brief summary.

Yes, it is: very, very brief. The true picture is far more complex: the branching structure of the evolutionary "Tree of Life".

Creation model can explain it just as well; this was the order that life was created. Almost every form of life appears suddenly in fossil record. Many scientists do admit there are many gaps. How many I don’t know.

If, by "creation model", you mean Genesis: no, it cannot. The sequence is wrong: grass, for instance, evolved since the dinosaurs died. There is also the correlation between the order of the fossils, the order in which creatures evolved from each other, and DNA analysis. The only possible creationist explanation is "God planted false evidence to deceive us".

One example is of flight. All animals that have wings could all fly. There is no record to how they were able to evolve these wings. Scientist have formed some interesting hypothesis, but it is hard to test them when first there is no record in the fossil record, we can see directly some form of life evolving wings in nature.

Yes, scientists would like more fossils covering this area. But the similarity between Archaeopteryx and land-based reptiles of the era is obvious. In fact, throughout living organisms and the entire fossil record, there is no creature which lacks ancestors: it's just that there may not be a fossil of the immediate ancestor.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Nothing here, scroll down.

[-=Vagrant=-]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
Some one mentioned different forms of life appering quite rapidly during the campric (?)peroid. According to the latest studies the whole "explosion" of different species happened in "only" 5-10 millions years. That is a much shorter time than the original campric "explosion" of 30-60 million years.
I'm not making any conclusions about it, it is just really interesting.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I know that people look at the fossil record this is the general order of how life appears in the fossil record. First single cell life in sea, then fishes and other types of sea life appear. . . . However, to me this does not in my mind.

Creation model can explain it just as well; this was the order that life was created. Almost every form of life appears suddenly in fossil record.

From your own statements, it is apparent that life "evolves." The only question being how and why.

HOW: Darwin believed that life evolved gradually, and as a first-order approximation, he was correct. A closer look has revealed that life evolves not in a smooth slope, but in starts and stops. Most species do not change much over time. Indeed, according to the theory, they should already be well-adapted to their environment.

The most important rule of evolution is extinction. What happens is the environment changes, and species are put through extreme stress. Most die. Sometimes, isolated pockets survive, often with distinct variations from the former gene pool. Many species do not ever evolve substantially. They become extinct and are replaced. When they do evolve as a species, usually it is due to isolation and divergence.

The fact that a species is put through a "gene-pool bottleneck" results in rapid change. For instance, I have a big nose. If I was the sole surviving male of a huge catastrophe, then the human species would suddenly become a big-nosed species. It is very unlikely there would be a fossil record of this change. Big-nosed humans would go from a rare variation to domination. Mu-ha-ha.

WHY: As has been documented time and time again, species go extinct because of changes in the environment. Isolated groups which exhibit successful variations may survive and repopulate the former niche.

Scientists can watch genes change according to a fixed rate, called genetic drift. (Some diseases use this genetic drift to avoid the immune system of their hosts.) When populations become isolated, the drift eventually results in separate species.

The creation of unique species is observed constantly in botany, for instance with orchids. This is not mere speculation.

[Lincoln]

Jack, that was a nice try but you are only proving my point about it being largely speculation and fraud. Here are a few more that you can speculate on. And obviously "the entire scientific community" doe not agree with your particular brand of speculation and subjective interpertation.

"I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there’s a very strong desire there to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." (3)
Evolutionsist Dr. Greg Kirby Senior Lecturer in Population Biology

Dr. Tim White was about to debunk another ape-man "missing link". This time the bone in question was not properly curved. And a tiny opening in the bone (called the nutrient foramen) did not open the correct way.
Tim White was quoted as saying:
"The problem with a lot of Anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominoid (ape-man), that any scrap of bone becomes a hominoid bone."


A few other scattered bone fragments were also thought to belong to a primitive ape-man. A clavicle once thought to belong to an ape-man was later determined to be nothing more than an alligator femur and a horse toe.

Herbert Wray also had this to say:
"According to John Hopkins University anthropologist Alan Walker, there is a long tradition of misinterpreting various bones as human clavicles; in the past, he says, skilled anthropologists have erroneously described an alligator femur and the toe of a three-toed horse as clavicles…." (6)
If you ask World famous Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould if there is ANY fossil Evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution here is what he would say:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability even in our imagination to construct functional intermediates in so many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradulistic accounts of evolution" (7)

A single skull was found near the village of Orce in Spain. Based on this one bone some over eager scientists again took artistic freedom and reconstructed an entire man from this single bone. (1)
The name given to this "man" was "Orce man". Orce man was said to represent the oldest human fossil ever discovered in Europe. (1)
Later, to the embarrassment of many the bone was correctly identified as being a skull cap belonging to a six month old donkey. (1) So clearly, if man evolved from
apes, then the Jackass must be the missing link!
Set back, and slightly embarrassed, those who believed in Evolution were not willing to give up, and the search continues for a missing link.

Would this search continue to embarrass those who believe in Evolution? Or would the search yield fossils that would support the Theory of Evolution?
Recently a "collar bone" was found that many believed belonged to a primitive ape-man. To many, this was the fossil evidence they had been looking for.
The fossil was found by Noel Boaz in the Libyan Desert at the Sahabi site in 1979. Boaz claimed this ape man lived 5 million years ago.

This date did not come from carbon dating, but was based on the estimated age of some fossil marine plankton at the site.
The Sahabi fossil was the oldest known fossil "ape man" in the world. Boaz claimed this ape man walked upright based on the backward "S" shape of the clavicle. This claim should have been enough to draw up some red flags, as the Sahabi clavicle did not even exhibit the "backwards "S" Boaz claimed it had. In fact the top portion of the clavicle was not even there. The actual shape of the bone was more of a backwards "C" shape, than an "S". Another fine example of a Scientist seeing what he wanted to see in a fossil.

But there's more. In 1983, Donald Johanson's "Institute for Human Origins" held its first Scientific conference. Both Johanson and Dr. Tim White (an Anthropologist at the University of California, Berkeley) were to speak on hominid locomotion.
Johanson believed his 3 million year old "Lucy" skeleton was bipedal. But with Boaz's Sahabi ape man already walking upright 2 million years before Lucy, this made Boaz's find a bit of a problem. It would mean as far as human ancestors go, Boaz's find was more significant than Johanson's.
So Tim White and his students took a closer look at the so called "ape man collarbone". They determined that it was not a collarbone at all. But a rib.
This was surprising enough, but then they realized that this rib did not belong to an ape man at all. Upon further study they determined that it was not a human rib, nor was it the rib of a primate.

During the "Institute of Human Origins" conference, Tim White took to the podium and challenged the fossils credibility.
It was then that Dr. White revealed the fossils true identity to the public. The Sahabi ape man based entirely on one bone, was not a collar bone but actually the fossilized rib of a dolphin.

Oddly enough in the audience was Noel Boaz, the scientist who discovered the Sahabi "collarbone". Though he angrily defended his fossil, all could see that when a cast of the fossil was displayed next to a modern dolphin rib, the two were identical.
On April 28, 1983 Dr. Tim White wrote an article in "New Scientist" ( pg. 199) on the Sahabi fossil titled:
"Hominoid collarbone exposed as dolphins rib"
This has caused many to jokingly refer to this "missing link" as: "Flipper-pithecus boazi"

Unveiled in October 1999, National Geographic magazine hailed the specimen, dubbed Archaeoraptor, as "a true missing link in the complex chain that connects dinosaurs to birds." Months later, the magazine said the fossil was a fraud after a Chinese paleontologist, Xing Xu, said he thought the fossil was a composite of different animals.
Now Xu and colleagues report in this week's journal Nature that X-ray computer scans show Archaeoraptor was artfully created from 88 fragments of rock and fossil in three layers.


A Piece of Work
The turkey-sized animal was said to have been found in China's Liaoning province by farmers. Many fossils from the Early Cretaceous period, 125 million years ago, have been unearthed in the area. After it was taken out of China, it appeared on the commercial market at the Tucson Gem and Mineral Show, where private collectors gather to buy and sell fossils.
Tim Rowe, a vertebrate paleontologist at the University of Texas and an author of the study, says the specimen was purchased for $80,000 by Stephen Czerkas, an artist who creates models of dinosaurs, although the creator of the fossil remains unknown. Czerkas did not return phone calls for comment on the study.
"It was built by someone who had training in the anatomy of birds and dinosaurs," Rowe says. "They purposely created an intermediary form." Rowe says many of the fossils at the Tucson show are fake, but that untrained collectors are often duped.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/scite...aud010328.html

The Coelocanthus, the Intermediate Fossil That Never Was
After studying fossil remains, with a bit of educated guesswork, evolutionists concluded with unusual unanimity that it lived 350 million years ago in the Devonian period, when it became extinct. But not before flapping onto the estuarine mud flats, and with the aid of its intermediate limbs, giving birth to a new line of organisms able to exploit the land. It was hailed as the father of all terrestrial life. This discovery of an important missing link was one of Fleet Street's earliest scientific scoops. The British Museum of Natural History put on a special exhibition, school kinds the length and bredth of the land came to learn about this important discovery which proved Darwin's theory. Unfortunately, at this point in 1938 off east London on the African coast some fishermen caught a Coelocanth. Examination of this real specimen, demonstrated the academic reconstructions of the intermediate limbs to have been, as usual, just wishful thinking by evolutionists. Its fins were not substantially more intermediate than those of pet goldfishes. The habitat of the Coelocanth is also 200 metres plus in the ocean. Which means when brought up to the surface it explodes due to decompression. Another good reason why this could not be the intermediate creature that was the father of all terrestrial life. Furthermore, 1986 camera tracking of the Coelocanth by Hans Fricke of the Max Planck Institute for Animal behaviour, revealed the Coelocanth does not even stroll along the sea bed with its fins as supposed, but swims like any other fish. So remember, had not a living Coelocanth been caught, even today we would probably be taught this was a critical intermediate fossil that proves evolution. One wonders what other statements made by evolutionists today would turn out to be erroneous if we had live specimens to examine....

Archæopteryx is one of the most widely-known so-called transitional forms among the very few that evolutionists still defend. Archæopteryx, the ancestor of modern birds according to the evolutionists, lived 150 million years ago. The theory holds that some of the small-scaled dinosaurs named Velociraptor or Dromeosaur evolved by acquiring wings and then starting to fly. Thus, Archæopteryx is assumed to be a transitional form that diverted from its dinosaur ancestors and started to fly for the first time. However, the latest studies of Archæopteryx fossils indicate that this creature is absolutely not a transitional form, but a bird species bearing some characteristics distinct from today’s birds.
The thesis that Archæopteryx was a "half-bird" that could not fly perfectly was popular among evolutionist circles until not long ago. The absence of a sternum, that is the chest bone, in this creature, or at least its not being the way it is in flying birds, was held up as the most important evidence that this bird could not fly properly. (The chest bone is a bone found under the thorax on which the muscles required for flight are fastened. In our day, this chest bone is observed in all flying and non-flying birds, and even in bats-a flying mammal which belongs to a very different family.)

However, the seventh Archæopteryx fossil found in 1992 caused great astonishment among evolutionists. The reason was that in this recently found Archæopteryx fossil, the chest bone that was assumed to be long missing by the evolutionists actually existed. This recently-found fossil was described in Nature magazine as follows:

The recently discovered seventh specimen of the Archaeopteryx preserves a partial rectangular sternum long suspected but never previously documented. This attests to its strong flight muscles. This discovery invalidated the mainstay of the claims that Archæopteryx was a half-bird that could not fly properly.
On the other hand, the structure of the bird’s feathers became one of the most important pieces of evidence verifying that Archæopteryx was a flying bird in the real sense. The asymmetric feather structure of Archæopteryx is indistinguishable from modern birds indicated that the animal could fly perfectly. As the famous paleontologist Carl O. Dunbar states, "because of its feathers Archæopteryx is distinctly to be classed as a bird"
Another fact that was revealed by the structure of Archæopteryx’s feathers was the bird’s warm-blooded metabolism. As it is known, reptiles and dinosaurs are cold-blooded animals that are affected by environmental temperatures rather than regulating their body heat independently. A very important function of the feathers in a bird is the maintenance of the animal’s body heat. The fact that Archæopteryx had feathers showed that it was a real, warm-blooded bird that needed to maintain its body heat in contrast to the dinosaurs.

It is true that Archæopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth, but these traits do not imply that this living creature bears any kind of relationship with reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today, Taouraco and Hoatzin both have claws to hold onto branches. These creatures are fully birds with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archæopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings.

Neither do the teeth in Archæopteryx’s beak imply that it is a transitional form. Evolutionists make a purposeful trickery by saying that these teeth are characteristic of reptiles. However, teeth are not a typical characteristic of reptiles. Today, some reptiles have teeth while others do not. Moreover, Archæopteryx is not the only bird species that has teeth. It is true that birds with teeth do not exist today, but when we look at the fossil record, we see that both in the same age as Archæopteryx and afterwards, and even until fairly recently, a distinct bird genus existed that could be categorised as "birds with teeth".

The most important point is that the teeth structure of Archæopteryx and other birds with teeth are totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The famous ornithologists Martin, Steward, and Whetstone observed that Archæopteryx and other birds with teeth have teeth with flat top surfaces and large roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, are protuberant like a saw and have narrow roots.(40)

The researchers also compared the wrist bones of Archæopteryx and their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.(41)
The studies of anatomists like Tarsitano, Hecht, and A.D. Walker revealed that some "similarities" asserted to have existed between this creature and dinosaurs as put forward by John Ostrom, a prominent authority who claims that Archæopteryx evolved from dinosaurs, were in reality misinterpretations.(42) All these findings indicate that Archæopteryx was not a transitional link but only a bird that fell into a category that can be called "birds with teeth".


To tell you the truth, if I had to support the dinosaur origin of birds with those characters, I’d be embarrassed every time I had to get up and talk about it.(49) To sum up, the scenario of the "evolution of birds" erected solely on the basis of Archæopteryx, is nothing more than a product of the prejudices and wishful thinking of evolutionists.
Thanks go to Harun Yahya <http://www.harunyahya.org/Eng/EvolDec/e7.html> for that. Saved me the bother of typing things up. In sum, despite the fact that this 'intermediate bird,' could fly as well as any modern bird, the talk.origions faq <http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-tran...al/part1b.html> states, 'Archeopteryx could probably flap from tree to tree, but couldn't take off from the ground.' I am afraid there are a very large number of scientists who desperately want this species to be an intermediate fossil, and willfully ignore all evidence to the contrary. What can one do? Even if I had a live specimen cheerfully flapping around in front of me, I think most evolutionists would still insist it was an intermediate (between what of course, this is never stated!) to their dying day.

The Infamous Horse Evolution Digram
In 1879, an American fossil expert, O. C. Marsh, and famous evolutionist Thomas Huxley, collaborated for a public lecture which Huxley gave in New York. Marsh produced a schematic diagram which attempted to show the so-called development of the front and back feet, the legs, and the teeth of the various stages of the horse. He published his evolutionary diagram in the American Journal of Science in 1879, and it found its way into many other publications and textbooks. The scheme hasn't changed. It shows a beautiful gradational sequence in "the evolution" of the horse, unbroken by any abrupt changes. This is what generations of kids have seen in school textbooks and encyclopaedias. However, as usual, we find a detailed examination of how this proof of evolution was derived proves rather interesting. For starters, fossil remains of modern horses have been found next to the earlier species they were alleged to have evoloved from. And secondly there there is no one site in the world where the evolutionary succession of the horse can be seen. Rather, the fossil fragments have been gathered from several continents on the assumption of evolutionary progress, and then used to support the assumption. That sort of approach to 'proof,' will get you fail marks every time on any reasonably advanced mathematical course. And the fossil sequence is not quite as complete as the diagram suggests. One can also suggest that the genetic distance between the earliest horse and modern horses is not so great, since modern horses someties give birth to offspring with some of the alleged primitive feature such as 3 toes. i.e. its just microevoution / population genetics. And finally, lets assume for a moment the diagram is genuine. If if takes several generations for horses to show not much devlopment apart from size, surely this sequence proves there is something very wrong indeed with the fossil record with all the huge gaping holes in it? Surely it proves we should have dozens or even hundreds of intermediate in the fossil record to mark the transition between species. Either way you chose to see it, genuine or fraud, I do not think horse evolution is particularly good news for evolutionists.


Neanderthal Man
Human origins is a murky subject where personal opinions are routinely and aggressively presented as scientific ‘facts.’ Neanderthal man (discovered 1856) is widely considered to be our closest ancestor, at least by the general public, but despite the prevalence of Neanderthal skeletons, the transition from Neanderthal man to modern man is sudden and abrupt without any intermediate forms. Today not even the ‘experts,’ seriously entertain the idea that modern man descended from Neanderthal man. Homo Heidelbergensis ( also called Archaic Homo Sapiens and Homo antecessor ) seems to be the best current guess for human origins. The thinking is both modern man and Neanderthal man evolved from this common ancestor, although what Heidelbergensis itself evolved from seems to be uncertain. It should be noted that these expert opinions seem to change from one decade to the next, as the ‘facts,’ keep changing (i.e. everyone used to know for a fact we evolved from Neanderthal man / Piltdown man / etc). If you want my personal opinion on human evolution, the fossil fragments point to a biological field <http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Ramp...alt-evolu.html> with an intelligent hominoid form in mind, trying to execute on its design properly and repeatedly not quite getting it right (it was an extremely tough engineering design brief, after all). I do not think there is a direct relationship as such between any of the hominoids, except that they are the product of the same field.

http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Ramp...71/frauds.html

----------------------------------------------------

Of course this could all be a huge right wing conspiracy by evil creationists.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Jack_www
I know that people look at the fossil record this is the general order of how life appears in the fossil record. First single cell life in sea, then fishes and other types of sea life appear. . . . However, to me this does not in my mind.

Creation model can explain it just as well; this was the order that life was created. Almost every form of life appears suddenly in fossil record.

From your own statements, it is apparent that life "evolves." The only question being how and why.

HOW: Darwin believed that life evolved gradually, and as a first-order approximation, he was correct. A closer look has revealed that life evolves not in a smooth slope, but in starts and stops. Most species do not change much over time. Indeed, according to the theory, they should already be well-adapted to their environment.

The most important rule of evolution is extinction. What happens is the environment changes, and species are put through extreme stress. Most die. Sometimes, isolated pockets survive, often with distinct variations from the former gene pool. Many species do not ever evolve substantially. They become extinct and are replaced. When they do evolve as a species, usually it is due to isolation and divergence.

The fact that a species is put through a "gene-pool bottleneck" results in rapid change. For instance, I have a big nose. If I was the sole surviving male of a huge catastrophe, then the human species would suddenly become a big-nosed species. It is very unlikely there would be a fossil record of this change. Big-nosed humans would go from a rare variation to domination. Mu-ha-ha.

WHY: As has been documented time and time again, species go extinct because of changes in the environment. Isolated groups which exhibit successful variations may survive and repopulate the former niche.

Scientists can watch genes change according to a fixed rate, called genetic drift. (Some diseases use this genetic drift to avoid the immune system of their hosts.) When populations become isolated, the drift eventually results in separate species.

The creation of unique species is observed constantly in botany, for instance with orchids.

[Zachriel]

The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability even in our imagination to construct functional intermediates in so many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradulistic accounts of evolution"

That is correct. Gradualism is just a first-order approximation. The modern second-order approximation is called "punctuated equilibrium."

You keep pointing out mistakes, and supposed mistakes, which is a part of the normal scientific process. No where does that call into question the fundamental Theory of Evolution. The scientific community accepts Evolution as much a fact as Gravity. There is no dispute within the scientific community, the only question is the details. A view from the National Academy of Science:
http://books.nap.edu/html/creationism/evidence.html

Prediction is the key to all science. Darwin predicted that there are more extinct species yet to be discovered. Check. Darwin predicted that the earth is much older than the best physicists of his day believed. Check. Darwin predicted that there was a messenger of genetic information, probably chemical. Check. And that this messenger would mutate over time. Check. Darwin predicted that fossil species will be clearly divided in the geological record. Check. Genes will drift over time. Check. That the drift can be affected by radiation or chemicals. Check. Modern biologists predict that they can splice this genetic material between species. Check. Cloning. Check.

Predictions of Creationists. None. Zero. Nada.

All modern biology is based on the fundamental principle of Evolution. Refusing to believe in Evolution is like saying you don't believe in atoms (which many people once refused to do), while physicists are building nukes. Or that the Theory of Gravity is just a theory, when they are putting satellites into orbit. Or that quantum theory is wrong, even though you are using electronic devices built with the theory.

My God man, they are ready to start cloning people! They're splicing genes between species. This is serious stuff. One day soon, when artificial evolution kicks in, we may look on natural evolution as the good old days.

[DinoDoc]

Can someone explain to me, in as much English as possible, how it is possible that Quantum Effects could be signifigant on a macro scale?

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
Can someone explain to me, in as much English as possible, how it is possible that Quantum Effects could be signifigant on a macro scale?

You picked the word "significant." Quantum effects are generally not significant on the macro scale. But the question is, do they exist in the macro-scale at all. If they do not exist, then quantum effects may just be an approximation of the "ultimate" reality. Otherwise, . . .

Does anyone have a link describing the experiment?

[-=Vagrant=-]

Flying squirrels, mudskippers, walrusses and seals are NOT transitional animals. God just made them look like the perfect example of a transitional animal. So there, you Evilutionists!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by -=Vagrant=-
Flying squirrels, mudskippers, walrusses and seals are NOT transitional animals. God just made them look like the perfect example of a transitional animal. So there, you Evilutionists!

Interesting examples, though I doubt that flying squirrels consider themselves to be transitional. Rather, (if they were to ponder the matter), they would probably believe themselves to be the pinnacle of evolution, and perfectly adapted to their environment.

I wonder. Are humans transitional?

[MrBaggins]

In order to be able to consider the immanent qualities and substance of "elementary particles", physicists have to turn to the framework of Quantum Field Theory. Essentially, Quantum Field Theory is a specialized set of mathematical formulas and rules by means of which one, in a consistent and very detailed manner, can consider questions such as 'what is the true origin and intrinsic nature of matter, charge, force etc.' and 'what is really going on at the most fundamental levels of nature'. Actually, Quantum Field Theory is not a theory as such but is more like a complex and content rich language well equipped for describing and "verbalizing" realms where other languages (such as English or the mathematics of Quantum Mechanics) have to give up.

To define QFT elementally.

What is a field? Mathematically, a point is an entity which has no extent but is infinitely small. A mathematical field is an infinite set of such points that are continuously distributed throughout space. In physics, one or other quality is attributed to each point so the corresponding field thus becomes a medium of this quality. Depending on which quality is attributed the field may be a force field, a matter field, an energy field, etc. - Now, probably this concept of infinite sets of infinitely small entities is hard to grasp for the uninitiated but do not despair. The important thing to remember is that a field is a phenomenon which is continuously distributed throughout space.

What is a quantum field? In Quantum Field Theory one applies certain mathematical operations to the fields whereby these become quantized. The immediate consequence of quantizing a field is that certain subsets of the points, constituting the field, are restricted to be finite and discrete quantities of the attributed quality, rather than the quality being uniformly distributed throughout the whole field. Such discrete subsets of a field are called field quanta - or quanta for short. Each kind of field has its own kind of quanta, which have been given a more or less fanciful name. F.ex., photons are the quanta of the electromagnetic force-field, gluons are the quanta of the strong force-field, quarks and electrons are quanta of matter-fields, etc.

What is a quantum? Unfortunately, the term 'particle' is often used as a synonym for 'quantum'. This unhappy mixing of concepts has served to obscure the circumstance, that through the 20'th century a brandnew worldview has gradually emerged, totally different from the worldviews of preceding times. Let us be specific: A particle is a discrete entity residing or moving in an empty region of space - usually called vacuum. The particle's intrinsic substance and qualities are totally independent of this vacuum. A field quantum is a discrete entity residing or moving in a continuous medium. Its intrinsic substance and qualities are direct manifestations of this medium. Although all branches of physics agree conceptually, that the "elementary particles" are not particles but field quanta, it is almost exclusively Quantum Field Theory and General Relativity (gravitational field theory) that actually take the immanent field properties into account. However, this is mainly a matter of technical pragmatism. The mathematical complexity of field theories is tremendeous and the phenomena, encountered in other branches of natural science, can be handled quite well without bothering about field properties.

Having thus settled the technical issues, what kind of worldview is that has gradually emerged through the 20'th century? - Well, since the times of the ancient Greeks the Western worldview has been dominated by the idea that everything in the physical universe was made up by minute, indivisible building blocks of a fixed size and outline - i.e. particles. From its advent until the early nineteen-thirties the main course of natural science was to detect still smaller representatives for the basic building blocks. Nevertheless, the overall, conceptual yield of Quantum Field Theory is a worldview according to which, everything in the universe is nothing but the appearances of vibrating, interacting fields. - Is there, perhaps, some kind of field which is more fundamental than any other field? - Quantum Field Theory says yes.

In fact... at its highest level, the universe could have said to be a single, complex quantum-field.

[MrBaggins]

Originally posted by Zachriel


You picked the word "significant." Quantum effects are generally not significant on the macro scale. But the question is, do they exist in the macro-scale at all. If they do not exist, then quantum effects may just be an approximation of the "ultimate" reality. Otherwise, . . .

Does anyone have a link describing the experiment?

Roger Penrose is looking to save science by unifying classical and quantum science.

His view is that the elemental construction of the universe are twistors (IIRC?) He's been working on that a *long* time. One of his co-authors, Steve Hawkins does not share his absolute view.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Zachriel
My God man, they are ready to start cloning people! They're splicing genes between species. This is serious stuff. One day soon, when artificial evolution kicks in, we may look on natural evolution as the good old days.

Taiwan's scientists clone pigs which carry human DNA
http://www.taipeitimes.com/news/2002...ory/0000132577

[Dauphin]

Its from a passworded archive, so I have to copy and paste:

Bouwmeester and Marshall plan to put a microscopic crystal, less than a micrometre across and containing about 10¹⁵ atoms, into a superposition of being in two different places at once. Tiny though this crystal is, by quantum standards it is huge-well within the realm of the macroscopic world. Penrose estimates the crystal's mass will force any superposition to decay within 1/100th to 1/10th of a second. That's slow enough to measure the change, and fast enough to distinguish the result from standard quantum mechanics, which decrees the superposition should last indefinitely.

The experiment will begin with a laser firing a photon at a beam splitter (see Graphic), which sends the photon along two paths at once in classic quantum fashion. Along one path the photon heads towards a mirror, which reflects it back to the beam splitter. On the other path, the photon hits a crystal suspended on a carbon filament in such a way that it will recoil slightly when hit by the photon. The superposition of the two photon paths forces the crystal into its own superposition of two locations at once: one where it has recoiled and the other where it remained stationary because the photon took the other path.

After bouncing off the face of the crystal, the photon then heads towards a second mirror. This portion of the photon's flight is timed precisely so that the photon is reflected back to arrive at the crystal at the very moment this has returned to its original position. The crystal then reflects the photon back to the beam splitter, where it recombines with its parallel state as if they had never been apart.

"If quantum mechanics with all of its superpositions remains true, then it will always go back out the way it came," says Penrose. In this case, everything about the original photon is preserved. It passes through the beam splitter the way it came, and goes straight back into the laser. The photon detector placed in the alternate path from the beam splitter will detect nothing. If the detector does register nothing every time the experiment is run, it will confirm that each photon is indeed "aware" of both paths.

But the researchers will arrange the experiment so that the photon's flight through the apparatus takes more than one-tenth of a second. In this case, Penrose says the crystal's superposition should decay while the photon is still in the apparatus. That means the two possible paths will have reverted to one, and the photon's superposition will also have to decay. In this scenario, the photon comes to the beam splitter having been forced to choose one path or another. At the beam splitter it might be sent back into the laser, but half of the time it will be reflected another way and end up in the waiting detector.

Also a research group doing an experiment with the same objective, different method:

http://www.dartmouth.edu/artsci/phys....html#cmexpthy

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Jack_www
There have been many examples of fraud and miss interruption of fossil, which have been at one time said to be missing links to human evolution. Analyzing fossils is not a perfect science, and mistakes can be made, and in fact major mistakes have been made, and some very few people have engaged in out right fraud.

That's correct. Fossils are rare to come by, and they are very difficult to read, even experts can make mistakes.

But that's all right, because science is self-correcting. Frauds will be exposed, flaws will be corrected. Consider that the exposers of scientific frauds have all been scientists, this holds true so far.

However, this cannot be said of creationism accounts, whether it is veiled in "science" or not. Simply, there is no theory to creationism, no theory in terms of science at any rate.

We understand our knowledge of the world is imperfect, that's why there is a built-in correction mechanism in science. We are relentlessly skeptical, constantly demanding evidence.

Fortunately for us, creationists don't work that way. They can stoop down to any level - no trick is too dirty. Creationists are fond of misquoting and quoting out of context. They love to inflat their own titles (I personally have sniffed out a few) and refuse to acknowledge mistakes. They resort to logical fallaices and downright falseholds. When presented with pointedly challenges all they do is evade.

In "Archaeopteryx and the Creationists" Lenny Frank recounted some of the usual tricks used by creationists.

EDIT: this section in the talks.origin archives cannot be missed. It contains a number of informative exposure of creationist lies, misquotes, and assorted underhanded tricks. Not to mention the funnies.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
No, the burden of proof is on the one who seeks to overthrow about 5 thousand years of experimentally proved fact. That is, Coded information that is stored in a specified order and provides translatable and communicative instructions ALWAYS derives from a mental process. Now prove that to be wrong and you can be another Einstein.

First thing is, where is this fact? Links? Sources? What?

Originally posted by Lincoln
I did not question evolution on a micro level.

So you are accepting that these are facts:

1. Genetic information is mutable by random, natural processes

2. Environmental pressure will select among indivduals with genetic alleles, causing a shift in their distribution.

Originally posted by Lincoln
I already did that.

Will check on it. Thanks. EDIT: I searched through the thead and it appears you in fact did not answer my question.

[MrBaggins]

Urban Ranger... look at these answers by Lincoln>

5) You believe that microevolution occurs today? Yes or No
6) You believe that macroevolution never occured? Yes or No

5. Yes
6. I cannot say "never".

Lincoln agrees that evolution happens, but is bounded arbitrarily.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
If you ask World famous Evolutionist Stephen Jay Gould if there is ANY fossil Evidence supporting the Theory of Evolution here is what he would say:

"The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability even in our imagination to construct functional intermediates in so many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradulistic accounts of evolution"

Jay Gould is saying this:

1. The fossil records support evolution
2. It is very hard to locate fossils of transitional forms

Notice that he did not say that these fossils do not exist.

So what's the problem? It is well understood that fossils took very precise conditions to form, thus they are hard to come by. It is actually indicative of evolution's explanatory power that transitional forms are hard to find. Evolution predicted that these lifeforms existed for only short periods of time, for they would be unable to compete against newer, more adapted lifeforms. This fits in beautifully with the rarity of transitional fossils.

Instead of being a problem, this lack of fossils of transitional lifeforms supports the theory of evolution.

[Jack_www]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger


That's correct. Fossils are rare to come by, and they are very difficult to read, even experts can make mistakes.

But that's all right, because science is self-correcting. Frauds will be exposed, flaws will be corrected. Consider that the exposers of scientific frauds have all been scientists, this holds true so far.

However, this cannot be said of creationism accounts, whether it is veiled in "science" or not. Simply, there is no theory to creationism, no theory in terms of science at any rate.

We understand our knowledge of the world is imperfect, that's why there is a built-in correction mechanism in science. We are relentlessly skeptical, constantly demanding evidence.

Fortunately for us, creationists don't work that way. They can stoop down to any level - no trick is too dirty. Creationists are fond of misquoting and quoting out of context. They love to inflat their own titles (I personally have sniffed out a few) and refuse to acknowledge mistakes. They resort to logical fallaices and downright falseholds. When presented with pointedly challenges all they do is evade.

In "Archaeopteryx and the Creationists" Lenny Frank recounted some of the usual tricks used by creationists.

EDIT: this section in the talks.origin archives cannot be missed. It contains a number of informative exposure of creationist lies, misquotes, and assorted underhanded tricks. Not to mention the funnies.

I cannot speak for anyone else but myself, but I just look at the evidence. Most of the information I have looked at was not written by mainstream creationist. I never try to use under handed tricks or lie. I try to keep an open mind. I do not totall dissagree with those of you who support evolution, and I can see how one can come to that conculsion when looking at the fossil record.

The weakest do die, and the fittest do live on. We have seen many species under go small changes. Were I think the evidence is lacking is were for example reptiles evolving into birds. I would also say that not every one who believes life was created does these things, and same would be true for those who support evolution, not all have commited fraud, and be disshonest.

[Lincoln]

"Instead of being a problem, this lack of fossils of transitional lifeforms supports the theory of evolution."

Sorry that there is not enough "non evidence" to support the latest version of Darwinism. Maybe you all can figure out what exactly it is that you all are looking for. Darwin said that transitions would support his theory, you and other punctuated equilibrium types say that you don't need the transitions (now that you haven't found them). So which is it? Are you looking for less evidence or more? Would absolutely no evidence prove your case?

In other words the theory is a joke. It is based on a lack of evidence because none was found.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
Jay Gould is saying this:

1. The fossil records support evolution
2. It is very hard to locate fossils of transitional forms
. . .
Evolution predicted that these lifeforms existed for only short periods of time, for they would be unable to compete against newer, more adapted lifeforms. This fits in beautifully with the rarity of transitional fossils.

Instead of being a problem, this lack of fossils of transitional lifeforms supports the theory of evolution.

Not only do transitional forms only last for a short period of time, but they may be located in geographically small areas. Many times new species are spawned when small groups are geologically isolated. The small population allows for rapid genetic change, especially during times of stress.

[Lincoln]

Here is the watchmaker thing that I answered. If you have any more questions about it let me know:

From R.J. Riggins:

“. . . watches DIDN'T just appear in the world as they presently are! As a matter of very obvious fact, they evolved. The first timepieces were very primitive, clumsy, and inaccurate. They improved over the years. If we can refer to really old time-keeping devices as "fossils", then we can show a fossil sequence of the evolution of watches from some dim time in the past up to our present electronic wonders. Nowadays they evolve visibly from one year to the next. The watchmakers went through a whole, evolving series of clocks and watches before someone carelessly dropped one in that desert.”

Mr. Riggins here is trying to refute the requirement of a designer behind a watch (or biological machine) by suggesting that “evolution” can do it without any help from an intelligent source i.e. God. Of course the fact that watches improved over time into their present form does not explain the necessity of a human being behind each evolutionary improvement of the watch. Nor does it solve the problem of the existence of the first watch which regardless of its supposed primitive form was still quite complicated and required a designer.

“OK, I know, the point is the first animal. How could it get started? All presently living animals are started off with bits of already-living matter created by their parents. Nonliving chemicals don't spontaneously assemble, don't create orderly, complex molecules out of simple elements... Don't they? If the creationist gets to this point, he has revealed his basic ignorance of simple chemistry. Elements and simple molecules combine spontaneously all the time to form more complex molecules. When was the last time you found any loose hydrogen on the Earth, or fluorine? All of it has spontaneously combined with other elements to form more complex molecules. If you turn some loose, it won't stay uncombined for long. Carbon atoms, especially, have a tendency to form spontaneously into all kinds of complex molecules, which in turn often combine to form very complicated polymers and mega-molecules. Some of those combinations are even self-replicating, if the raw materials are available. We don't commonly see molecules assembling themselves into living systems, but then it only had to happen once--from then on the natural tendency of life has been to keep itself going, spread out, and evolve.”

Here Mr. Riggins explains how molecules spontaneously form into more complex molecules. He is correct, but that fact, as we showed in the example of snowflakes and DNA, does not solve the information problem. Nor does it solve the problem of regulation and complex interaction of biological machinery. This is what I call the “snowflake argument” and we find it in many forms. The flaw in reasoning though is always the same. A machine may be composed of naturally formed elements but these interesting shapes and patterns and combinations of molecules cannot form themselves into a complicated interactive machine that is analogous to a living organism. Nor are these complex molecules analogous to information.

His assertion that some compounds are “self replicating” also is misleading because they are replicating themselves. This proves that a gear designed by a human being can be stamped out in a factory automatically by machine. A living cell is not just a container full of parts that float around looking for a function or another chemical to randomly interact with. Even if one does not assume a designer behind the chemical reactions that are self replicating we are still not any closer to solving the problem of assembling the machinery of life into the intelligent order that they are in.

“. . . the point of the tired, old watch-in-the-desert analogy was supposed to be that evolution does not and could not occur. But watches have evolved; they aren't created miraculously, ex nihilo; and their inability to self-assemble has nothing to do with the obvious ability of chemical compounds and living things to assemble themselves out of available materials. So how is it again that finding a man-made watch is supposed to prove that animals were created in their present forms?”

Finally Mr. Riggins sums up his argument without apparently seeing his mistake in analogy. No, watches do not require miraculous intervention but they do require a creator. The human creator of course (in the analogy) is in the place of God. He succeeds, as other skeptics before him, in proving again the absolute necessity of a creator. As far as trying to prove through the watchmaker analogy that animals were created in their present forms he makes a good point. The analogy does not prove the method of creation, only the absolute necessity of a creator. The final form of the creation however came into being (either gradually are instantly), by necessity, as the result of intelligent intervention at some point.

The ability of chemical compounds to “assemble themselves” he incorrectly states proves the irrelevance of the watchmaker analogy but he again misses the point. The ability of chemicals to assemble themselves into more complex chemicals or shapes or patterns does not even solve the basic problem of a gear on a rotating shaft meshing with another gear in a perfect ratio necessary for just the beginning stages of watch assembly. Likewise, the ability of chemicals to interact spontaneously with others to form what we might call objects is analogous to a transmission case full of gears, tubes, clutches, nuts and bolts and various other parts that have been dropped into the case by the mechanic. Chemicals do not have the ability to “assemble themselves” into a fully functioning machine and the odds of that happening are about the same as those that would require a watch case full of a random assortment of gears and shafts etc. to assemble themselves into a fully functioning watch.

His assertion that “it only had to happen once” is also misleading. This argument is often used by atheists to try and show that given enough time anything is possible. Of course even in an infinity a watch case full of gears will never assemble themselves into a logical order necessary for keeping time. Likewise, no amount of time or varied circumstance will assemble any amount or combination of chemicals, energy or whatever into the information based machinery in even one cell.

The watchmaker analogy is still just as relevant as when it was first used to appeal to the common logic of man so that he could have is eyes opened to the absurd notion of some, that design exists without a designer.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Sorry that there is not enough "non evidence" to support the latest version of Darwinism.

It appears you don't even try to study "your enemy." PE != Darwinism.

Originally posted by Lincoln
Maybe you all can figure out what exactly it is that you all are looking for. Darwin said that transitions would support his theory, you and other punctuated equilibrium types say that you don't need the transitions (now that you haven't found them).

We can all depend on a creationist to resort to all kinds of logical fallacies. Notice that nobody, other than creationists, asserted we have no fossils of transitional forms. We just don't have as many as we like to have, but this is to be expected.

Once again, please dispense with your strawman.

Originally posted by Lincoln
So which is it? Are you looking for less evidence or more? Would absolutely no evidence prove your case?

Bad, bad Lincoln. One strawman is not enough, you need two.

Originally posted by Lincoln
In other words the theory is a joke. It is based on a lack of evidence because none was found.

Let me see. There are these fallacies:

1. Non sequitur
2. Hasty generalisation
3. Strawman

Just to name a few.

Better luck next time.