For those who deny the the evolutionary process ... I recently had the great pleasure of speaking with Dr. Douglas L. Theobald from the University of Colorado. Dr. Theobald is a molecular biologist researching the causes of cancer at the molecular level. I asked his about the evolution ID (Creationism) debate, and here (by his permission) was his response:

... But I am a research scientist, and I require that "working" inferences and explanations be tangibly productive (or at the very least not misleading), regardless of my political and philosophical preferences. My research (cancer research at the molecular level) and scientific success depends on it. Contrary to common public perception and to the unsubstantiated claims of many non-scientist Creationists, evolutionary theory is fundamental to progress in the biological sciences, and it is only becoming more so as we become engulfed in the information tsunami coming from large-scale genomic sequencing projects. I cannot afford to use concepts that lead to the wrong inferences or that just lead to nowhere. The real-life stakes are much too high, and in the end reality has no sympathy for quaint philosophical biases.

Cheers,

Douglas

^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`^`
Douglas L. Theobald, Ph.D.
American Cancer Society Postdoctoral Fellow
http://www.cancer.org/
Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry
University of Colorado at Boulder

So, as you can see, ET must work in order for him to predict (calculate) changes in cancer cells at the molecular level. If ET was not predictable at this level--and obviously on a much larger scale as well--the consequences would be severe.

Kindly,

Sean

I was asking what THEORY you were referring to and following the topic of this thread.....


EDIT: IF: I liked the picture

Yeah, music! It's my life. (*continues to strum*)

Can you play some Jimi Hendricks or Stevie Ray Vaughan

ME TOO! (*strums along with IF*)

ARE WE NOT MEN?

I didn't know Fender made a tobacco sunburst Strat in juvenile monkey size.

Well then, pay no attention to the band of Orangutans playing back up. Ok?!

Wow... I just read the huge battle that went on a few pages ago... Now i'm sitting here thinking to myself "i'm glad I stayed outta that one!"
It's like world war 3 back there

Someone opened a thread and displayed this link -- Law of Evolution???

for those of you that believe in evolution....you all should read this....tell us what you think of it

Thanks for that BM. It's an interesting link. It certainly poses questions - why they are there? is obvious. And evolution is a good theory to fit that for now.

However, I also think it's only circumstancial proof. It's making an argument from absence. We don't know why we have them, so it must be evolution (though to be fair, evolutionary steps can explain some of them).

I don't think it's conclusive by any means, nor is it suddenly a cry to call evolution a "Law". BUt it is an interesting thought.

Regards, PA

This may not be on topic but i have a question: Do Catholics believe that Cave men existed? If they did would that mean that they believe in evolution?
Or do they believe that cavemen where like a different species?

I can answer this one easy...being raised catholic..and going to an all girl catholic school (St Marys JHS) ...we where taught that we all came from Adam and Eve...if a catholic pupil had of challenged this in class...they would have been thrown out for sure.....all Catholics believe there was Adam & Eve..all Catholics believe God created us....as for cave men...when I attended (aged 14) a comperhencive school that was mixed....Cave men was just ONE subject that blended in to HISTORY CLASSES...completely different alltogether

Catholics will not believe evolution exists...LOL why the heck do you think I turned and dropped the faith...cuz I dont follow the bible like I was taught to...I turned on the Catholic faith and went on my own journey...

There is no incompatibility between the Catholic faith and Evolutionary Theory. Pope John Paul made that very clear, and was widely acclaimed for it, which is surprising, because Pope Pius XII made pretty much the exact same declaration about half a century ago.

Dragon is a word they used in the past to describe what we call dinosaurs today. I don't think they called them dinosaurs in their day.

yea, proably dinos, the breathing fire = exaggerating. theres alot of stuff in the old testament that some of you will disagree. one for example is beating up your wife thats why the new testament was written with the experiences of Jesus.

oh si

question: how did birds get their wings from evolution? for what purpose if they could already walk on ground.

Good question!

well you could add to that as to WHY fish remained in the water.....its all evolution IMO land, air & sea..it don't make a difference, IMO everything elvolved...and that included animals ...because not every single creature evolved into humans lol

Really, if that story is taken literaly, it sound like made-up BS. It's really stupid that no one should question it. If they did, then they would realize it shouldn't be taken literaly.

It is just wikidey wikidey wikidey wack wack wack....

I did question it...how else was i able to see what happened when a student questioned it? LOL Yes BM was made go stand in the corner LOL it was fun

um something called predators where around would you rather walk and be killed or have wings so you could fly away safely?, some birds don't have wings because there is no need for them i.e. it is safe where they live etc and this is the reason why alot of them are extinct today i.e. the dodo bird until man came along (their first contact with a true predator) and they were naiive and caught easily because they didn't evolve enough to carry them away from safety and gain predator defence, is that easy to understand????

Evolution versus Creation is a good subject I think there must be a multiverse cause no-one can explain what created the Universe we are in scientists say we are in a womb or something in Ancient Egypt they say Draco constellation was where life or the 1st part of the universe was created and Orion which is believed to be the centre is parallel to it.

The bible says God created the Sun stars moons and all life in 7 days while a day to God is a thousand years.But this is the interesting part how did we get our knowledge and evereything we see today I say a fallen race of people came to Earth and taught us what we know evident in their works Pyramids Pantheons Scriptual writings Sculptures etc. Creationism works for me

Wings evolved over time lets take the flying squirrel for example it doesn’t have wings but has evolved large flaps of skin attached to its limbs and body which it opens when jumping from tree to tree enabling it to glide, some lizards do this also. In time this may specialise into wings depending on selective pressures, note bats wings are an extension of this whereas the whole limb has become specialised for the purpose of flight (still retaining fingers though) but probably evolved from something akin to the afore mentioned squirrel. Now birds being decedents of reptile like organisms or dinos probably quite early in there evolutionary stage diverged from reptile like intermediate forms or transitional forms like archobtrix (having wings but like the bat retaining its finger structure) and over time evolved and continue to evolve subject to select pressures into the forms we know today

Hope this answers you question

Here links to the animals I refer to

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bat

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_squirrel

ignorance of history can do that to you

I think LOJ is one of bang your head against a wall hardcore christians.

hi everyone and thanks for replies, yes it does answer my question thanks but im abit skeptical about the the mid stages of birds. For example during the slow change of evolution on birds, what would half wings do? Like you explained wings come slowly in time. wouldn't natural selection stop the development after about 1/10th. having half wings would hinder its escape from predators. birds have really hollow bones which enable it to fly [and birds without hollow bones have no chance of flying] so during the half way stage they can't fly... wouldn't their bones be too fragile to move on ground? i could imagine if it tried to glide it would have a good chance of breaking its legs or ribs.

thanks

This is a common misconception about evolution. Evolution doesnt have a mind of its own, it doesnt think "well, lets make wings" or anything like that.

Excellent question, and an important one too, because it addresses one of the main anti-evolution fallacies, namely Determinism. This is the logical fallacy that is made when one assumes that any given trait was meant to occur in the manner that it occured, and that it was meant to have resulted in what it resulted.

The same mistake is made when the Watch, or Mousetrap Argument, is brought forth, namely that, since each individual part of a watch or a moustrap is useless without the others, then they could not have randomly evolved into their respective forms, and therefore individual mutations which all lead to one specific trait would be similarly useless individually.

Again, that is determinism in action. The subconscious assumption made is that the gears in the watch, or the spring in the mousetrap, or the feathers on a wing, where designed with the purpose of eventually becoming a watch, moustrap, and wing. What must be realized, however, is that this is not what evolution postulates.

According to evolution, these are all individual mutations which occured, which eventually led to the particular trait. That means that each mutation was, at the very least, of neutral value or of beneficial value, to the species it cropped up in (if it was of negative value, the creature would have likely died).

So, what that means is that the gears in the watch, perhaps, functioned as buttons prior to being a part of a pocketwatch. The spring in a moustrap possibly served as clasp of some kind. And, in the case of the wing, perhaps it served as some form of heat preservation. In an animal as thin as the avians where turning out to be, a warm downy feather coat would certainly be an evolutionary advantage. That these tufts would eventually evolve into the barbed flight feather we know of today is somewhat irrelevant to their function prior to that.

great post, argh make it any more professional ? had to read it twice before understanding it . anyways up till now, i thought evolution was a theory based on evidence with a mind of its own. but when Christians say somethng like God exists, all the skeptics would jump on him and say wheres the evidence.

Nah. Christians, and pretty much anyone for that matter, is free to say anything they wish. The only time that skeptics will "jump" on anyone is when they presume to state some belief or opinion as a statement of fact. In the same way that most Christians would object to a serious misinterpretation of a biblical passage and intent, so do skeptics object when given scientific theories are used incorrectly, and on occassion, outright deceitfully.

No not really, both skeptics and believers will get into an arguement over anything. If it's fate or anything else. The two sides have a lil bit o hate for each other, but just a lil.

I suppose, but at that point it becomes somewhat one-sided to call them skeptics and believers. A beleiver can put forth pretty much any point of view and not be accussed as a general believer of everything. A skeptic can be skeptical of just one thing, and still be called close-minded about everything in general.

People need to stop referring to anyone who objects to anything as skeptics. Skepticism is a formal system of investigation and verification. People here confuse it with cynicism and outright trollery.

Skeptic: One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

dictionary

I think both points of view are often questioned.

good post aquatus1




There are many misconceptions when evolution is concerned, unfortunately its this lack of understanding that underpins most doubts .Most arguments against from religious circles usually stems from this biased half knowledge . It is often assumed evolution works to a plan with an ultimate goal in mind when in reality its based on Radom chance a concept some find troubling

I am a believer...I believe in God...I believe God is responcible for evolution....and FYI the christians as you said...do in fact jump on the skeptics every last chance they get...just in the same way the skeptics jump ..its a 2 way street...and after all isn't this board for skeptics too...me thinks you need to re-read the name of this board

I don't disagree with anything that you said. That was not, however, the point of my post. The point of my post is that skepticism is a system based on formal logic and critical thinking, but people are simply associating it with a mere desire to disagree. It is very similar to calling anyone who likes to beat people up a martial artist. It is somewhat insulting to real martial artists.

Believers jump on non-believers and non-believers jump on believers. What you believe does not make you a skeptic. What makes you a skeptic is the use of logic and reason in your analysis. You are free to believe anything you like.


exe11er,

If I define "skeptic" as a school of thought, such as I did in my previous post ("Skepticism is a formal system of investigation and verification."), then it becomes somewhat deceitfull to yank another definition from the dictionary and ignore the one that I used:

skep·tic also scep·tic Audio pronunciation of "skeptic" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skptk)
n.

1. One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.
2. One inclined to skepticism in religious matters.
3. Philosophy.
1. often Skeptic An adherent of a school of skepticism.
2. Skeptic A member of an ancient Greek school of skepticism, especially that of Pyrrho of Elis (360?-272? B.C.).

skep·ti·cism also scep·ti·cism Audio pronunciation of "skepticism" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (skpt-szm)
n.

1. A doubting or questioning attitude or state of mind; dubiety. See Synonyms at uncertainty.
2. Philosophy.
1. The ancient school of Pyrrho of Elis that stressed the uncertainty of our beliefs in order to oppose dogmatism.
2. The doctrine that absolute knowledge is impossible, either in a particular domain or in general.
3. A methodology based on an assumption of doubt with the aim of acquiring approximate or relative certainty.
3. Doubt or disbelief of religious tenets.

Ohh I know ...everyone is...what makes me laugh is those that make claims that their faith is the one and only lol..when at the same time not one of those people, can prove it...some tend to forget what the word faith means

well i think that if evolution does exist, we are not the final stage in the evolutionary chain especialy with the theory of aliens mating with primates (ew btw) the must be a few more stages that we can evolve to

Certainly not. Evolution has no final stage.

evolution is correct however natural evolution does not work. the correct term is unatural evolution.

for example vestigial traits. vestigial traits are the evolutionary equivilant of a u-turn. half wings are detrimental, and never come in the first place, without considerable outside factors contrary to evolutionary theory[im not saying its God but that would explain it]. for example another vestigal trait is our pinky as well, but they never served no purpose in evolution, maybe its there for typing on keyboards :]. do not forget, evolution is a refinement process so any unwanted stuff is refined.

about the find of the dinosaur having feathers on their arms which aint wings at all, what could having a few feathers on 2 arms serve? you see this is one of the many dead ends on natrual evolution. wings are nothing until they're big enough to do its job- which makes natural evolution a dead end.

Again you misinterpret evolution, in order for your logic to work and what you say to be true evolution would have to have an end form or goal in mind which is not the case.

Evolution doesn’t work to a plan, take the ostridge for example there wings are basic and serve no real purpose other than for display, in time they may disappear all together or they may return to flying birds depending on the selective pressures. They serve no actual purpose but are not detrimental to there existence .

You see the use of an evolved feature may not actually be what it was originally used for as someone already mentioned fathers are a good form of attracting a mate most male birds are highly decorated the females bland this feature may have been the driving force behind the evolution of feathers, flight was probably just a side effect but as it gave a better chance of survival as a result it became more specialised


Evolution is the gradual change over very long periods of time and natural selection would weed out weaker forms with detrimental features, in time they either adapt or become extinct

Big Cheese pretty much covered all the points, so I am just re-capping.



Just a little confusion here. Half-wings are not vestigial. Vestigial describes something that is degenerating and no longer serving any useful function. Half-wings are not necessarily degenerating (I admit, I have no idea if the ostrich's or dodo's ancestor ever flew), and they are certainly not useless. The ostriches use their wings for several social functions. This is a common mistake. Evolution doesn't create half-a-wing in order to create half-a-wing. It simply makes something that we, who have seen a full wing, call a half-wing, and it gets used for whatever, or not. Evolution does not create things with a purpose.



Incorrect. Evolution is not a refinement process (that implies that there is some ultimate end form that we are reaching towards). Evolution is fairly random. Somewhere along the line, we developed five fingers, and that's how it has stayed since. Some animals moved away from this, some did not. Since the pinkey did not affect our reproductive ability in any way, it would be a mistake to consider it of any evolutionary effect. If the pinky disappears, it is merely due to the same random factors that caused it to appear in the first place.



An ostriche's wings are not nothing; they are an integral part of the ostriches life, without which his chances of reproducing drop to almost zero. That they do not function as wings is by and large irrelevant. Assuming they are useless unless they are flapping through the air is committing the fallacy of Determinism, meaning the belief that a given occurrance happens for some pre-ordained cause, such as half-a-wing evolving solely for the purpose of eventually becoming a flight wing.

Hmmm. Just a random question. Since there are so many diverse species on this planet, doesn't that mean the Earth's invironment would have to have changed dramatically, almost constantly for millions of years?

Or for let's say... a fish or another animal wich lives in water. It would have to end up on land to evolve into a land animal right? Well, what caused it to go on land? Do you really believe fish would even go on land enough for them to evolve? It would be surprising to see a fish try to stay on land in the first place.

I don't have enough time(not even on my own computer, on a public PC) to explain myself good so =P.



EDIT: Another question. What about the human brain, and concsiousness itself. We don't understand too much about either one, so how can we say it's a product of evolution, and evolution alone?

Not really. In fact, punctuated equilibrium is pretty much the new kid on the block as far as theories go. The massive amount of time involved is more than enough time to give us the diversity we find on Earth; indeed, even Darwin thought evolution was slow and constant.



Yeah, it is kind of freaky to see the catfish walking around on land in Florida. Why did the first fish walk out on land and decide to stay there? That answer is lost to time. It's entirely possible that they didn't go to land full-time, but spent their time going back and forth between the two. There are dozens of different scenarios that the first land-dwellers could have followed, but I can't think of any sort of evidence that could give us a hint as to which the correct one is.



The reasoning doesn't really follow the question. We understand quite a bit about the brain, more than we don't, to be frank, but regardless, even if we didn't, the reason we would consider it a product of evolution is because we see the development of it throughout our genetic ancestors.

Here’s a few interesting links regarding fish anatomy and environments

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lungfish

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mudskippers

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climbing_gourami


Fossil; records show that this process of sea organisms venturing onto land is not unique

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/06/science/...c6a&ei=5090

http://chronicle.uchicago.edu/060413/fossils.shtml

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg1902...discovered.html

hi thanks for responses BBIg cheese and aqauatus. well, i've been reading it and have got nothing to say. :[

i think these links will interest you. i got them from xFISHx, debunks evolution XD.
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/lucy.html

http://www.forerunner.com/forerunner/X0714...fails_test.html

Hey man, this isn't a competition ; there aren't winners and losers here. You learned something, and that's fantastic!



Interesting articles, and not really new. I think that perhaps the greatest that I have with these articles that there is actually any such thing as a "Missing Link". This is actually another one of the major mistakes that are made by anti-evolution arguments.

The term "Missing Link", in biological terms (as opposed to general popular use) doesn't refer to a specific animal. There is no direct line of genetic human ancestry that we are looking at with horror because there is a missing spot that keeps us from having a complete lineage. A missing link is nothing more than a creature that is found that falls neatly into a given evolutionary niche. In other words, the term does not refer to a specific animal, but rather refers to an animal that becomes another piece of the evolutionary puzzle. "Missing links" are not predictable, or waiting to be found; missing links are simply holes in the walls that eventually get filled or not as we discover new fossils.

When someone say's "Have they found the Missing Link yet?", they are displaying their belief that evolutionary biologists are looking for some specific creature who's discovery will cement evolution forever as being "True", and who's lack of discovery is the ultimate evidence that evolution is faulty. This is incorrect. There is no such creature out there. A missing link is nothing more and nothing less than a creature we find that we can tell who its ancestors are and who it eventually became.

on the subject. just a few months ago they found a fossil that links the early shallow water dweller mammal with the shoreline dweller. they found the inbetween.

i saw it on the colbert report, lol.

I had to look that up

NEW YORK — Scientists have caught a fossil fish in the act of adapting toward a life on land, a discovery that sheds new light one of the greatest transformations in the history of animals.
Scientists have long known that fish evolved into the first creatures on land with four legs and backbones more than 365 million years ago, but they've had precious little fossil evidence to document how it happened.

The new find of several specimens looks more like a land-dweller than the few other fossil fish known from the transitional period, and researchers speculate that it may have taken brief excursions out of the water.

"It sort of blurs the distinction between fish and land-living animals," said one of its discoverers, paleontologist Neil Shubin of the University of Chicago.

Experts said the discovery, with its unusually well-preserved and complete skeletons, reveals significant new information about how the water-to-land evolution took place.

"It's an important new contribution to (understanding) a very, very important transition in the history of life," said Robert Carroll of McGill University in Montreal.

The new find includes specimens, 4 to 9 feet long, found on Ellesmere Island, which lies north of the Arctic Circle in Canada. It is reported in Thursday's issue of the journal Nature by Shubin, Ted Daeschler of the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia and Farish A. Jenkins Jr. of Harvard.

More: SOURCE

Actually, there still exists a species that can breath on land and underwater.

yeah, but im sure somewhere, someone used that gap against evolution, LOL.

this just shows how the evolutionary "line" is still being filled in.