the theory of evolution ...

[Big Country]

Where is Thews when you really need him?

[tonorator]

First of all, the finding by Leakey isn't even about Neanderthals (Homo Neanderthalensis). Its comparing Homo habilis and Homo erectus. The tree of evolution is refined with every new discovery but only in the details not in the grand scheme.

 

We share a common ancestor with Chimpanzes, the Great Apes, Lemurs, Monkeys, etc. Multiple human-like forms existed over the years. Neandethals lived at the same time as early Homo sapiens (us). Look up a human evolutionary tree somewhere. You'll see a dozen branches. Some died off, some keep going, but we are not "off base".

 

The only goal of evolution is to survive and have babies. There is technically no "higher" being - only different methods of sending DNA into the next generation.

 

i was referring to kimbel's quote above, not leakey's finding.

 

there is no hard evidence that we have monkeys as our ancestors. the only thing we have to go on is fossil evidence, and that contradicts itself at every turn.

[Ursa Majoris]

Ton, you have a fundamental misunderstanding, and the author knows very little about evolution. First of all, the finding by Leakey isn't even about Neanderthals (Homo Neanderthalensis). Its comparing Homo habilis and Homo erectus. The tree of evolution is refined with every new discovery but only in the details not in the grand scheme.

 

We share a common ancestor with Chimpanzes, the Great Apes, Lemurs, Monkeys, etc. Multiple human-like forms existed over the years. Neandethals lived at the same time as early Homo sapiens (us). Look up a human evolutionary tree somewhere. You'll see a dozen branches. Some died off, some keep going, but we are not "off base".

 

The only goal of evolution is to survive and have babies. There is technically no "higher" being - only different methods of sending DNA into the next generation.

Good info here

[tonorator]

this is pretty good ... you can criticize the motives, but the data is true nonetheless ...

 

An Analogy

 

Image John the evolutionist and Fred the creationist entering a huge 50-story museum filled with all the fossils that have ever been unearthed. The curator of the museum explains that most of the complete fossils are displayed in every single room up to the 50th floor, while the incomplete fossils are kept in a small closet in the basement. The curator tells John and Fred that the fossils throughout the building represent all the invertebrate phyla discovered, literally billions of complete specimens representing millions of different species of complex invertebrate animal life, from clams, to trilobites, to sponges.

 

The curator then tells John & Fred about the small closet in the basement. They are told that the fossils in this small room constitute only .0125% of the fossil record, and most of these are fish. He then adds that the remaining fossils in this small room that aren’t fish make up all the remaining vertebrate fossils, 95% of which are represented by less than a single bone.

 

John and Fred scurry through all the evidence throughout the massive building, ignoring that little closet in the basement, realizing that it’s the most unrevealing data to look at. As the huge cache of complete fossils is examined, panic soon begins to set in for John the evolutionist because THERE IS NOT A TRACE OF EVOLUTION IN ANY OF THE EVIDENCE! NONE! THERE IS NOT A SINGLE LINK TO THE COMPLEX INVERTEBRATES, AND NOT A SINGLE LINK BETWEEN INVERTEBRATES AND VERTEBRATES!

 

In a total state of panic and defeat, John suddenly remembers something the curator had mentioned. That little closet in the basement! John quickly runs to the basement and opens the door to the small closet. Soon his mind begins whirling, he becomes excited, and before long he has found “evidence” for evolution! These fragments of bones allow John to make all kinds of wild, fanciful speculation. “Hey, this is ‘evidence’, man!” John gleefully declares. The curator quickly reminds John that many similar past speculations made from observations from this tiny room have long since been refuted. He’s reminded of Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Ramapithecus, Mesonychid, Pikaia, and so on and so forth. But John is so excited about his speculation that he chooses to ignore this very important and revealing truth.

 

John goes on to gleefully tell others that “the fossil record supports evolution”, and gives them his “examples” from the closet in the basement. He fails to mention to them that his evidence is from a tiny closet full of incomplete specimens. He also fails to mention that all of the other rooms in the 50-story building contained complete specimens, yet yielded NO sign of evolution whatsoever. He tells his story over and over again, and before long, many begin to share in his fantasy, themselves telling the story to others over and over again. Eventually, their myth emerges as reality to countless unsuspecting listeners.

[Thews40]

I think the "true" creationist (as in there was nothing, then 7 days later there was everything) crowd has dwindled mightily due to the advances of science. I'm not a creationist at all in that sense. I do fall in a pretty large group that believes in a superior being.

 

The Bible, I believe, cannot be taken literally (this by itself could tangent off a bunch of discussion). But look at the time it was written, and what the knowledge was of the people who first read it. The "creationist" story would seem to be (maybe) appropriate for the crowd. I don't know. I think it's interesting that all the gospels were written by different people at different times, but tell the same story. (I'm sure science can explain a plausible theory about this, I'm not arguing)

 

Maybe the "creation" was God putting those traits in the evolved man that separate him from all other creatures. Science can't explain conscience, love, hate, etc. The free will expressed in the Bible allows some people to give in to temptation, to committ evil acts, etc, while others sacrifice lives, money, time, to help others, for example. No other creature in a scientifically-proven evolutionary species does anything like this. Why? Science has absolutely no theory to explain why you felt like you did when your kid was born.

 

All of this is based on faith, about whether you can believe in something that can't (someday) be proven to you. It's tough, and it's hard to not doubt a lot of it at times.

 

What if each of the "seven days" really stood for some long-scientific evolutionary time, like a billion years. Somebody do the math, divide the whole history of the universe (according to Science) into seven equal components. See if each of hte things the Bible says God did on each day fall into that component of evolution. Did evolution of the universe happen in the approximately same order as described in Genesis? Cuz if it did, somebody's gonna need to get a scientist to explain how the heck somebody thousands of years ago couldv'e known this scientific theory so well, even though they crafted it into a "fairy tale" that offends Spain.

Ok, so nothingness imploded/exploded and created everything… right! . Then, chemicals mixed together and created life. Well, disregarding a finite timeline and according to Darwin’s Finches… nevermind.

 

PS – If you have a soul God exists. Think about it.

[billay]

Ok, so nothingness imploded/exploded and created everything… right! . Then, chemicals mixed together and created life. Well, disregarding a finite timeline and according to Darwin’s Finches… nevermind.

 

PS – If you have a soul God exists. Think about it.

Stop it

[Avernus]

Ok, so nothingness imploded/exploded and created everything… right! . Then, chemicals mixed together and created life. Well, disregarding a finite timeline and according to Darwin’s Finches… nevermind.

 

PS – If you have a soul God exists. Think about it.

 

what if I don't have a soul? ...again

[billay]

And for what it's worth, we still share 99% of our DNA with chimps.

[Avernus]

And for what it's worth, we still share 99% of our DNA with chimps.

 

but they don't seem to be evolving at all...

[billay]

but they don't seem to be evolving at all...

We got the "good" 1%

[Thews40]

And for what it's worth, we still share 99% of our DNA with chimps.

Then why aren't there really smart monkeys that walk upright?

[Ursa Majoris]

this is pretty good ... you can criticize the motives, but the data is true nonetheless ...

The article loses all credibility by using Piltdown Man as an example of a refuted theory - it is not. It was a hoax, pure and simple, exposed by science as such. Granted some people fell for it but science won out, as it always does.

 

Not only that, the sentence "He also fails to mention that all of the other rooms in the 50-story building contained complete specimens, yet yielded NO sign of evolution whatsoever" is a nonsense - no single fossil example can show signs of evolution.

[Thews40]

We got the "good" 1%

rationalization. FWIW, the Scientific Method is only based on the existing universe. Explain to me where matter came from and I'll listen.

[Ursa Majoris]

Then why aren't there really smart monkeys that walk upright?

Some monkeys are a lot smarter than some denizens of this board.

[billay]

Then why aren't there really smart monkeys that walk upright?

Last I checked, there are chimps and gorillas that can walk on 2 feet and can learn sign language.

Edited August 9, 2007 by billay

[tonorator]

no single fossil example can show signs of evolution.

 

actually, there's none that does. that's the point. if it were true, we should be buried in it.

[billay]

actually, there's none that does. that's the point. if it were true, we should be buried in it.

No, the point is that evolution occurs within generations. not individuals. Populations inbreed, genetic abberations occur, then the environment changes and prove those aberrations either successful or not. Viola! Evolution.

Edited August 9, 2007 by billay

[isleseeya]

Let me comment on the theological side ...Christians believe and or at the least the notion is that God created Man in his image ...this does not mean God did not create dinosaurs , apes or neanderthals , rather the focus is that humans were created in his image ..that's were we come in

 

The belief is that man has a soul and spirit in the same way or way God wanted it ..further belief is that animals do not have a soul or spirit and I would suspect that neither did dinosaurs and neanderthals

 

We are separated from the rest of all living animals now and past tense based on this

 

Focus of Bible , new testament , is on man's soul and spirit , while we are human and live in the world , the goal or end prize is heaven and belief is our spirit goes up there , not our body ..brings me back to my opening statement

[Hugh B Tool]

And what proof and or links do you creationists have that will factually make your claims hold any water at all except your faith that it is the so called truth? Can you say "zero", I thought you could.

[jelap1]

Last I checked, there are chimps and gorillas that can walk on 2 feet and can learn sign language.

 

Also learning how to make weapons to hunt...

[tonorator]

No, the point is that evolution occurs within generations. not individuals. Populations inbreed, genetic abberations occur, then the environment changes and prove those aberrations either successful or not. Viola! Evolution.

 

going from generation to generation, there is no fossil evidence of evolution. no real connection can be made. if what you say is true, we should be able to trace it back step by step. we can't even come close.

[bushwacked]

actually, there's none that does. that's the point. if it were true, we should be buried in it.

 

 

So how is a single fossil supposed to show indications of evolution?

 

Edit for accuracy...

Edited August 9, 2007 by bushwacked

[tonorator]

So how is a single fossil, let alone a fossil sequence, supposed to show indications of evolution?

 

wow. are you really asking that?

 

there should be hugh evidence that shows our transformations, going from one mutation to another. all we can find are complete fossils of species as we have already catalogued them. everything else is woefully incomplete and in dispute.

 

go back up and read the analogy i posted.

[bushwacked]

going from generation to generation, there is no fossil evidence of evolution. no real connection can be made.

 

Technically, you are probably correct. But there is an abundance of evidence from Era to Era, Period to Period, and Epoch to Epoch.

[tonorator]

Technically, you are probably correct. But there is an abundance of evidence from Era to Era, Period to Period, and Epoch to Epoch.

 

show me the way to this evidence o' source of light.