the reason i'm posting this here is because in my OPINION a lot of evolution falls into the realm of belief and religion....

last night i was watching a special on the "HOBBIT"... not the one from lord of the rings... lol... the one that they dug up a while back... and it raised a few personal questions about evolution...

i personally don't believe species evolve into different species... but here are my questions... if you have a good explanation with sources... thanks in advance...

1) why can evolution break almost all known laws of science, yet nobody finds a problem with that? (thermodynamics - order to disorder- p.s. i know about the first 3 laws... not sure if there are more)

2) how did evolution "know" to evolve a male and female of the bigger species... for procreation?

3) did the male and female evolve at the same time?

4) how did evolution know to give 1 the sperm and the other the egg

5) if we were monkeys once... why would evolution make us weaker, slower on the ground, and take away our fur and make us seek shelter?

6) how does evolution know what to keep and what to get rid of? (in my opinion, this involves a thinking process)

7) why are most mutations NOT passed on... except for in the case of evolution?

8) how come almost all of the skeletons have been proven hoaxes, yet people still believe that they are proof?

9) how come we have monkeys and man, but no intermediary species still walking around?

10) how come everytime they get evidence to the contrary of evolution, they just revise the theory?

11) why are Haekel's embryos still in high school text books... even though it has been proven false?

12) why is it that even though evolution lacks concrete proof... science still pushes it as fact?

13) how did it move from a hypothesis to a theory? (i thought they had a structure to the scientific method)

14) evolution of large species can't be observed, yet it is stated as a fact that it did happen. why?

15) the fossil record on all animals is completely lacking, so why push it as fact?

16) how come scientist never mention the cambrian explosion when pushing evolution as fact to the masses?

in my opinion, this falls into the realm of faith and not science... the atom bomb was science... the internet, t.v., video, medicine, that is all science... i think the problem comes in when it tries to cross into religion... trying to explain our origins, even though they can't prove or disprove the theory...

i'm sure other people have tons more questions about evolution... but those are the ones i could think of off the top of my head...

is it possible to pull evolution out of the realm of faith and back into actual science?

Evolution is science. Theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Scroll down to the characteristics section. Anyways, you seem to have some of misconceptions about evolution. I would recommend checking out Evolution - Wikipedia, the free enclyopedia Understanding Evolution and Introduction to Evolutionary Biology. Note that the last link is from Talk.Orgins Archive, and is biased pretty heavily, but still a good source for material on creationism/evolution material from an 'evolutionist' view point. I would recommend checking out the rest of Talk.Orgins Archive, it answers some of your questions. If you still have questions, I'll try my best to answer them.

actually i've studied evolution pretty heavily... and those questions keep coming up and never get answered... i've heard the aleels thing... and all of that...

there are a lot of questions that don't get answered... and those are the ones i posted...

especially the one about the fossil records...

source




Is a common misconception. Evolution never stated we evolved FROM apes, but a common ancestor.


I don't know how creditable the source for the thermodynamics question is, I just found that while looking for misconceptions about evolution and thought I'd share it.

as far as evolving from apes... that's how it is presented in science books in almost every school in america... even so... the same question still stands... why did we evolve weaker, slower, and less protected from the elements? yet evolution didn't feel the need to correct that?

Heres one to add to the pot

By Fuz Rana, Ph.D.

Recent work by two researchers from University College London (UCL) and George Washington University (GW) calls into serious question the capability of paleoanthropologists to detect and establish the evolutionary relationships assumed to exist among bipedal primates, or hominids.1

Evolutionary or phylogenetic relationships for the hominids are determined by comparing anatomical features of specimens found in the fossil record with those of extant species.

For the hominids, the available fossils in most cases are partial crania, partial jaw bones, isolated teeth, and infrequently, partial upper and lower limbs.2,3 Rarely do paleoanthropologists find a complete cranium, let alone a nearly complete skeleton. And only a few of the hominid species in the fossil record are known from an abundance of specimens. Typically a hominid species is defined by just a few fossilized bone fragments.4 Many times the hominid remains have been crushed, shattered and damaged prior to fossilization or have become deformed as a result of geological processes. This only serves to compound the difficulty of paleoanthropologists’ work.

Given the nature of the hominid fossil record, it is not surprising that most evolutionary biologists recognize that the best they can hope for are crude working phylogenies.5 (A phylogeny is believed to be the evolutionary pathway for an organism or group of organisms.) This becomes apparent when one examines textbooks and treatises on human evolution. The large number of proposed phylogenies shows that paleoanthropologists are far from a consensus on the pathway to human evolution.6, 7

The situation has recently worsened for those attempting to construct hominid phylogenetic relationships. Scientists from UCL and GW indicate, based on their findings, that evolutionary phylogenies postulated for human origins are hopelessly uncertain.8 These two paleoanthropologists compared phylogenies constructed from gene and protein sequences with those constructed from cranial and dental features for two currently existing groups of primates, the hominoids (gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans) and the papionins (baboons, mangabeys, and macaques).

In both cases, the molecular phylogenies differed significantly from those derived using cranial and dental characteristics. Since evolutionary biologists consider molecular phylogenies inherently more robust, the authors of the study are forced to conclude that craniodental characteristics cannot be used as reliable indicators of primate evolutionary relationships (including those of extinct hominids). As the researchers from UCL and GW put it, “Without a reliable phylogeny, little confidence can be placed in the hypotheses of ancestry…”9

In light of these results, the assertion that human evolution is a fact becomes scientifically untenable. What seems apparent is that evolutionary biologists have chosen to interpret their data exclusively within an evolutionary paradigm. From this framework, they then declare that their data supports human evolution. To demonstrate that humans evolved by natural processes, there must be rigorous evidence of clearly established evolutionary relationships with obvious transitions in the fossil record. This study shows that such determinations may never be possible, given that cranial and dental remains are the primary fossils available to paleoanthropologists.

Equally disconcerting for the evolutionary paradigm is the lack of congruence between molecular and morphological phylogenies. Truth demands internal consistency. The failure to establish consistency for molecular and morphological phylogenies calls into question the veracity of the evolutionary paradigm.

New discoveries in paleoanthropology increasingly undermine the plausibility of evolution as an explanation for human origins.

References:
Mark Collard and Bernard Wood, “How Reliable Are Human Phylogenetic Hypotheses?” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA 97 (2000): 5003-6.
Roger Lewin, Principles of Human Evolution (Malden, MA: Blackwell Science, 1998), 117-18.
S. Jones, R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, "The Primate Fossil Record," The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, ed.S. Jones, R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 197-98.
Fuz Rana, “Up (and Away) from the Apes,” Connections 1, no. 4 (2000): 3-4.
Lewin, 296-307.
Lewin, 306.
Bernard Wood, “Evolution of Australopithecines” in The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution, ed. S. Jones, R. Martin, and D. Pilbeam, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1992), 240.
Collard and Wood, 5003-6.
Collard and Wood, 5003.

i have more too

I would really love to see the result of the evolution research.
it's really interesting.

If evolution is true,
adam is a monkey. -_-"
Which i foresee, would piss off a hell load of people.
I just find it funny. It's my science class joke during the period we were learning about evolution.

We didn't evolve from monkeys. Monkeys and humans evolved from a common anncestor. That, and evolution breaks no scientific laws. If anything, it makes perfect sense. Take a large population of non-desert-dogs, and release them into the desert. They either learn how to live in the desert, or they all die. The ones who do learn, will reproduce, and, over a very long amount of time, the dogs would have changed to fit the environment, and keep up numbers. It's adapt and surivive, or don't adapt and die. There's a small chance for them to mutate, to make it easier for them to live in the desert, and if they do, it will be passed down *because* it worked. That animal will become supperiror to the others, and being suppeiror, be able to live longer, and mate more. That means the mutation will be passed down to other generations, and those generations will survive longer, and mate *more*...thus whiping-out the "Inferiors".

Some of the OP's questions make me think that the OP believes that evolution is a corporeal being. "How did evolution know.....".


Common misconceptions about the theory of evolution are harder to eradicate than a NYC roach: No matter how many times you correct folks, they continue to bring up the fallaciers.

As has been pointed out, evolution is a process that passes off succesful genes from parent to offspring. If a mutation, or genetic change is counterproductive to survival, then its possessors will not live long enough to pass on their genes.


But, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, ands I seriously doubt that opinions will be swayed . In my opinion, of course.

Also, as has been pointed out, the human & primate species are branches off the same evolutionary tree: they are theorized to share a common anscestor.


This link to PBS may help, if anyone is interested:

Evolution Frequently asked Questions

actually... i was going to put quotation marks everytime i put "know" because when you listen to people describe evolution... they talk about it like a higher power... they use words like

kept
knew
knows
passed

since when can species select what genes are passed on to their offspring??

2 geniuses can have a kid that's dumb as a brick... am i to believe that the evolutinary process didn't deem it beneficial to pass on super intelligence?

Now, I'm no... um, "brain-ologist" (can't think of the right word at the moment), but I don't see intelligence as something to be simply passed down from parent to child.
Now, correct me if I'm wrong, please, but is intelligence not just how a person approaches tasks/how they see things/etc.? Not the actual physical construction of the brain (which may be passed down genetically, again, correct me if I'm wrong), but rather, how they use it.
If that is correct, then intelligence would be more of a skill, which is something that is learned. Which is why I have two parents that, well, didn't exactly do amazingly well in school. But I was (or still am, I'm not sure) the smartest kid in my school district, until they stopped testing to see who it was.

If two professional basketball players have a kid, then ship him/her off to some other country, change his/her name, giving the child no knowledge of their real parents, or that their real parents aren't the people they are living with. That child may be tall, may be athletic, but in my opinion, would not be good at basketball "at birth", they may, by chance become good later in life, but that would not be because of their genetics.
Had the child been with their real parents from birth, it would be the fact that the child would be surrounded by basketball, and the immersion in the sport that would cause him/her to develop an interest. The child would aspire to be as good as their parents, they would practice, and become a good basketball player.
Of course, that's not to say that the child couldn't become interested in something completely different, and never consider basketball as a favourable pass-time. It's all a matter of chance.

Thoughts? Comments? Corrections?

I wrote a very long post, but my internet connection cut out when I tried to post and it was lost, so sorry if this one seems rushed.



Wait, hold on. How does a single law of thermodynamics equate to 'almost all known laws'? That's a bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?

Evolution does not contradict this law. First of, the law doesn't state order moves to disorder (that's a common misconception). It says that conditions in which energy is able to be distributed in more ways, are more likely to occur. People often interpret that wrongly.

Secondly, the law states that entropy of the universe (a closed system) is increased. When you look at what occurs on the Earth (an open system), you can't disregard the external factors. While entropy decreases here, it increases elsewhere.



It provides benefits, an increase in chance of survival. Sexual reproduction allows for greater variation to take place (as opposed to asexual reproduction, where variation only occurs in the form of mutation), and of course greater variation means there's a greater chance of offspring being able to survive.



I'd presume so. Although I'd be lying if I said I knew how.



Sperm and egg cells are essentially the same, there aer differences like sperm being motile, the egg having stores of nutrients etc. These differences would have slowly developed over time.



Because our survival was dependant on mental and social capability, not physical.



This is where the problem lies, people thinking it involves a form of conscience, thinking. That's a huge misunderstanding. Natural selection, keeping the good, out with the bad; is the result of survival of the fittest.

Say we have a wild dog, it gives birth to a litter of ten puppies. Eight of these puppies have thin fur, two have thick fur; and it's a very long and cold winter. Which puppies are likely to survive the winter? Right. The two with thick fur. So which puppies will grow and give birth to the next generation? The two that survived...and so the next generation will have the thicker fur because they inherited it from the parents. The genes for thinner fur will eventually be filtered out as the dogs with thin fur aren't able to survive.

Here's a small picture I did for another thread a while back:





Mutations occur at single points of DNA. Usually as a result of an error in replication, sometimes due to environmental factors (exposure to radiation, mutagen chemicals etc.).

Now remember that the only genetic information passed on to your children will be the genes from sex cells (sperm/egg), these are also called 'germinal cells'. If a mutation occurs in a sperm cell that takes part in fertilization it will be passed on. This is known as a germinal mutation, because it occurs in a germinal cell.

Otherwise, if a mutation occurs in your arm, it can't possibly be passed on. This is known as a Somatic mutation, because it took place in a somatic cell (meaning any cell apart from sperm/egg).



Like what?



Look at a taxonomic tree. The species are extinct, but they're there.

That's how theories work. If you observe something contradictory to the theory, you revise it to accomodate the new knowledge. If the observation is significant, some times a completely new model is devised. Science is about learning, to find the answers, not claiming to know them and choosing evidence to fit.



I've never come across them before.



The process of evolution via natural selection is fact, it's been observed. The only thing which can be disputed is everything evolving from a common ancestor, but even that's a weak argument.

What would qualify as proof, for you?




There are vasts amounts of evidence to support it, there are facts to allow us to predict what can happen.

If you have a landmass that is full of animals, and this landmass is eventually seperated (via continental drift, say) the species will then be seperated. Over time they will adapt unique features (this has been observed, google "Peppered moth"), until over a long enough period of time they'd reach a point where they're so different to eachother they're unable to reproduce. <-- Speciation!



It's not "completely lacking", that's another exaggeration on your behalf. We have extensive evolutionary maps.



You seem to misunderstand a few of the fundamental concepts, I think that's why you find it so hard to believe.



The common ancestor was an ape. The misconception is that we evolved from any present species, such as a chimpanzee or a gorilla.



It did correct it, what do you think your brain is used for?

Evolution doesn't grant gratuitously. Think of survival of the fittest as I described earlier. If something doesn't help you survive, there's no reason for you to have it, and physical ability wasn't a great factor in our survival, our mental ability was.



Hopefully my pretty picture of the wasp () will help clear up your misunderstanding here.

Also to point out, I'm not claiming to have all the answers. I have a hell of a lot left to learn, so if someone is able to pick apart anything in my posts, it doesn't mean the theory of evolution is at fault; it's just me.

But I hope that helps.

Neanderthal-to-Human Link Severed
Fazale R. Rana, Ph.D.

Over the last five years, astonishing advances in ancient-DNA analysis have provided remarkable insight into Neanderthal genetics. As a result, the evolutionary connection between humans and Neanderthals has been severed. In other words, evolutionary biologists no longer think of Neanderthals as a transitional species linking the primitive bipedal primates, such as Homo erectus, to modern humans.

This stunning conclusion comes from analysis of mitochondrial DNA recovered and sequenced from Neanderthal remains.1 DNA sequencing refers to the process of determining the exact order of the chemical building blocks (bases A, T, C, and G) that comprise DNA strands. The average percent and locations of the differences between Neanderthal and human DNA sequences indicate that Neanderthals did not evolve into humans.

Researchers conducted the first studies on three distinct specimens that date between 30,000 and possibly 100,000 years in age, from three locations in the Neanderthal’s range (Germany, Russia, and Croatia). The DNA sequences obtained for all three Neanderthal specimens display remarkable agreement with one another. In fact, the DNA sequences vary by only about 3.7%. This sequence diversity compares favorably to that measured for modern humans (3.4%). Such similarity within the species, but dissimilarity between the species, indicates that these animals did not make any genetic (hence, evolutionary) contribution to modern humans.

More recently, scientists have isolated, amplified, and sequenced mitochondrial DNA for two more Neanderthal specimens. The specimens were recovered from new excavations of Feldhofer cave deposits—the location in the Neander Valley, Germany, where Neanderthal remains were first discovered.2 The DNA sequences of these two newly discovered specimens closely agree with those obtained for the three earlier studies and fall within the parameters for Neanderthal genetic diversity.

Ancient-DNA analysis makes many scientists uneasy, since contamination can readily creep in during the isolation and amplification processes. This wariness, however, can be confidently dispelled for the Neanderthal mitochondrial DNA sequences since independent research teams have generated consistent results for five different specimens. The conclusion is undeniable: Neanderthals did not give rise to modern humans.

References:
Matthias Krings et al., "Neanderthal DNA Sequences and the Origin of Modern Humans," Cell 90 (1997): 19-30; Matthias Krings et al., "DNA Sequence of the Mitochondrial Hypervariable Region II from the Neanderthal Type Specimen," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 96 (1999): 5581-85; Igor V. Ovchinnikov et al., "Molecular Analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the Northern Caucasus," Nature 404 (2000): 490-93; Matthias Krings et al., "A View of Neanderthal Genetic Diversity," Nature Genetics 26 (2000): 144-46.
Ralf W. Schmitz et al., "The Neanderthal Type Site Revisited: Interdisciplinary Investigations of Skeletal Remains from the Neander Valley, Germany," Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA 99 (2002): 13342-47.

Awesome answers Raptor. Nail, head, etc.

I would like phantum to now, similarly, pick apart Raptor's thread with the same amount of scientifically proven information, to present his own case for an alterative to evolution.

Somefink tells me he won't be able to.

I see no reason why one cannot be a Christian and still believe in evolution. During most of my fifteen year Christian walk, I embraced evolution; the evidence was overwhelming. I simply believed god was behind it all--guided evolution.

Top 10 Missing Links
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050922_ID_main.html

What About God?

Of all the species on Earth, only humans try to explain who they are and how they came to be. Encounter real human stories of people struggling to find a balance between religion and science, realms that play very different roles in assigning order to the universe and a purpose to life.

Video
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/index.html

The Gene That Made Us Human: Scientists decode a critical gene that may have led to the evolution of our big brains
http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/forum...t&p=1412791

Here are some terrific articles on evolution for Christians written by a Christian entitled ESSAY V: EVOLUTION FOR CHRISTIANS by Robert J. Schneider.

SOURCE
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay05.asp

AND:

I: WHAT THE BIBLE TEACHES ABOUT CREATION by Robert J. Schneider
http://community.berea.edu/scienceandfaith/essay01.asp

AND:

Religion and Science (video)
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/religion/index.html

...Instead of reading the chapter as a triumphant affirmation of the power and wisdom of God and the wonder of his creation, we have been too often bogged down in attempting to squeeze Scripture into the mold of the latest scientific hypothesis or distorting scientific facts to fit a particular interpretation. When allowed to speak for itself, Gen. 1 looks beyond such minutiae. Its proclamation of the God of grace and power who undergirds the world and gives it purpose justifies the scientific approach to nature (40).--Evangelical Bible scholar Gordon Wenham

Kindly,

Sean

i think I could see a micro evolution (i think that is what its called) deal happening but not full blown evolution

Terrific article on Macroevolution by Douglas Theobald, Ph.D.and John Wilkins ...

29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
Part 1: The Unique Universal Phylogenetic Tree
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.html#pred4

Macroevolution: Its Definition, Philosophy and History by John Wilkins (To be read in conjunction with Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Kindly,

Sean

i see they avoid the topic of the cambrian explosion... or did i just miss it?

Morning TP.

Claim CC301:

In the Cambrian explosion, all major animal groups appear together in the fossil record fully formed instead of branching from a common ancestor, thus contradicting the evolutionary tree of life.

Source: Wells, Jonathan, 2000. Icons of Evolution, Washington DC: Regnery, pp. 40-45

Response:

The Cambrian explosion does not show all groups appearing together fully formed. Some animal groups (and no plant, fungus, or microbe groups) appearing over many millions of years in forms very different, for the most part, from the forms that are seen today.

During the Cambrian, there was the first appearance of hard parts, such as shells and teeth, in animals. The lack of readily fossilizable parts before then ensures that the fossil record would be very incomplete in the Precambrian. The old age of the Precambrian era contributes to a scarcity of fossils.

The Precambrian fossils that have been found are consistent with a branching pattern and inconsistent with a sudden Cambrian origin. For example, bacteria appear well before multicellular organisms, and there are fossils giving evidence of transitionals leading to halkierids and arthropods.

Genetic evidence also shows a branching pattern in the Precambrian, indicating, for example, that plants diverged from a common ancestor before fungi diverged from animals.

SOURCE
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html

Talk Origins
http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/faqs.html

Macroevolution: Its Definition, Philosophy and History by John Wilkins (To be read in conjunction with Douglas Theobald's 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution FAQ.)
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html

Most kindly,

Sean

i figured i'd drop some interesting reads for whoever is interested in learning about the myth of evolution... i've included sources... since there is no concrete proof of large scale evolution... it does fall into the realm of faith... i wonder... is evolution lacking so much evidence that scientists believe they need to invent their own... just to get it to make sense? i challenge any believer in evolution to provide a valid explanation for any of these claims listed below...

Cambrian Explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion

Fossil Record
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html

Known Frauds
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/...dia/13anc06.htm

Piltdown Man Hoax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man

Nebraska Man Hoax
http://www.2christ.org/face/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man

History Of Human Evolutionary Discovery
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bonepeddlers.html

these are just a few that i have for right now... i'm sure i can find tons more all over the place... but i would like to see if the evolutionists can explain away the above...

*threads merged*

thaphantum - there's no need to start two evolution threads at once, especially considering that some of the articles you have linked in your most recent posts were directly discussed in this thread.

Cambrian Explosion
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
Evidence exists in the fossil records of a dramatic increase of complex multi-cellular life during the Cambrian period; however, there is much debate on what exactly caused this explosion of phyla. Although there is not a specific agreed upon explanation for the extreme rise in diversification, a combination of multiple triggers may allude to possible external and internal factors that resulted in this event. One possible environmental factor was the slowly increasing levels of oxygen that allowed animals to evolve larger complex body structures and create hard parts after a threshold value was crossed (University of Bristol). Another environmental factor for the creation of hard body parts could have been from chemical changes in the oceans or from the need for protection from predators. With the production of a hard external skeleton, the species best adapted could then continue to evolve.
In addition to environmental factors that have undoubtedly aided in the diversification of phyla, internal biological factors must have also contributed to the explosion of complex multi-cellular life in the Cambrian. A "genetic tool kit" evolved thatcontrolled developmental processes allowing for evolutionary experimentation (PBS). This genetic tool kit or "toolbox" assembled specific components of a given body plan allowing for rapid evolution (Morris, 1997).
Paleontology, "the study of ancient life" relies heavily on the available fossil record to shed light onto what exactly happened throughout the evolution of life, therefore, controversies are sure to arise as multiple reasonable hypotheses may contrast one another. The contrasting belief that the evolution of a variety of complex multi-cellular organisms began well before the Cambrian may less likely be proven due to the sole fact that there is minimal evidence from the fossil record of their existance. At times hypotheses can support one another by creating a broader understanding of events, such is the case that although the exact trigger of the Cambrian explosion is unknown, it is likely that the rapid diversification was a result of the combination of both biological and environmental evolutionary developments.
There is no dispute that "nearly all major animal phyla evolved during the Cambrians times…" (Starr, p. 202) or that, "Many new species have appeared since then. But nature drafted few, if any, new body plans after the Cambrian." (Levine, p. 76). It is amazing how such a huge evolutionary explosion could have occurred in "0.0001 % (one-hundredth of one percent) of the age of earth" (Starkey, p. 281). Although the cause of the explosion will continue to be debated, it is clear that 543 million years ago something was triggered that allowed organisms to evolve all the basic body plans of today’s life. Extracted from “The Cambrian Explosion” on the University of Dayton’s Geology Department’s website.
Richard Dawkins noted: "It's as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history" (Dawkins 1996: 229). Dawkins doesn't claim to know why there is so little pre-Cambrian fossil evidence but he suspects "it might be that many of these animals had only soft parts to their bodies: no shells or bones to fossilize" (Dawkins 1996: 230). A contributing factor could be that conditions that were conducive to preserving fossils during the Cambrian Period was the fact that most landmasses on the planet at that time were in the Tropics or the southern hemisphere.
Fossil Record
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-c006.html
This website puts forth material with no sources…typical of the revealed religions..here is the information, without any evidence, you just have to have faith!
http://www.cstnews.com/Code/FaithEvl.html Dr. Don Boys is a PhD – in religion, for him to comment on the Theory of Evolution is like an engineer commenting on the chemical changes in the brain during periods of stress – in other words neither the engineer nor Dr. Boys would be qualified to comment in any true depth, since neither would have any real background in the field!

Known Frauds
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/textbook-fraud.htm
Again, a “Creationist’ website attempting to debunk science, yet offering nothing but innuendo and asking the reader to take their information on faith!
http://www.evolutiondeceit.com/chapter9.php
This one is ludicrous….Piltdown was a hoax and it was a hoax that was exposed as a hoax by peer review…Science never claimed that Piltdown was real, the media of the early 20th century is the culprit in this case, a very similar occurance with the so-called Nebraska man…An unsubstantiated claim was made based on a single tooth, the media took off with the story and by the time a qualified scientist examined the evidence and declared it nothing more than a pig’s tooth, the media had managed to blow everything out of proportion.
http://www.pathlights.com/ce_encyclopedia/...dia/13anc06.htm
This link does not work….

Piltdown Man Hoax
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
See comments above
Nebraska Man Hoax
http://www.2christ.org/face/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebraska_man
See comments above
History Of Human Evolutionary Discovery
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/bonepeddlers.html
My firewall will not let me access this one…

these are just a few that i have for right now... i'm sure i can find tons more all over the place... but i would like to see if the evolutionists can explain away the above...
The above was easy to explain away, since most of the “things to be explained” came from biased websites. Websites that ignored the fact that these “things to be explained” had been explained, in most cases, years before. This is a typical Apologetic ploy, pretend that no one has ever answered these “things” and keep beating a dead horse over and over! My suggestion is to actually visit unbiased websites and observe the process of peer review, this is what keeps science honest – too bad revealed organized religion doesn’t have anything like that – Oh yeah, that’s right, something like that might cut of the money flow that religion thrives on! Before you poo-poo that, did you know at least 20% of the world’s wealth is owned and controlled by the various religions of the world, with Christianity being the richest?

Incidentally, how can an invisible guy in the sky that magically created everything by speaking a magical formula make more sense than the science that lets you speak over vast distances, see closeup what is happening on Mars, lets you span the continents in hours or travel the 20 miles to the nearest shopping center in minutes? I have never seen the Bible used to find oil, but I have noticed every new oil field is the result of a Geologist (scientist) studying the area and geologic data!

i see how you avoided a lot of stuff... i never said they hadn't been answered... i just want to know how the "theory" of evolution holds up if scientists feel the need to constantly fake it...

it's a typical atheistic ploy to just try to avoid it or bury it if it doesn't fit into their scheme... no matter how much proof against it arises...

and to answer your last question... you ASSUME God is invisible... no Christian has ever made that claim... at least to my knowledge...

you think that a belief in God doesn't make sense... but a bunch of cosmic gasses, molecules, etc... that magically appeared from out of nowhere... just exploded one day... even though unprovoked for God knows how long... and then magically it expanded at just the right rate of speed... and ultimately... by absolute chance... even though all logical explanation and numbers argues against it... non living matter became living.... not only that... an "unbiased force" called evolution... helped (wait that implies intelligence).... created (nope that does too)... guided (there it is again)... selected (that won't work either)... made/enabled/allowed/produced/formed.... explain to me how evolution "decided/knew/figured/chose/selected/etc." what was beneficial again?

we'll ignore all of that... even though evolution absolutely CANNOT be talked about without attributing characteristics of a higher, thinking power... lets go with it anyway... LMAO...

the more i hear about it... the more rediculous it gets...

It has become appararent to me that thaphantum is a lost-cause, and we should generally stop posting in here, simply because he doesn't seem willing to *listen*.

i don't listen to atheist propoganda... just like they don't listen to Christians in here... so should all atheists including you stop posting also?

thaphantum, I don't know where you get the idea that I am an Atheist! Far from that, I am a Deist - I follow a loving Creator, one that gave me a mind to use and true free will! You are very arrogant in denying the Creator the tools that he used to bring everything about. If you look at the universe, you see a creation that has logical makeup and logical natural laws; not something that "magically" appeared! You can see that this universe has been around for a long long time (please no "changing speed of light" male bovine manure - why worship a diety that lies, faking things to make a young earth look old is a form of lying). My suggestion to you is forget this Bronze Age Demon that your are following and open your eyes to the truth of the universe! - Mako the Deist

Can you post, specifically, what doesn't fit in with the scheme of evolution? I'm not talking about hoaxes in the past, or the lack of evidence. I'm talking about observable evidence which directly contradicts the theory.



Yet the greatest minds in the world don't seem to think so...



I see you conveniently skipped over my post, or did you just not understand it? The latter is acceptable, but if you just ignored it because it doesn't fit in with what you believe, you're just as bad as the hoaxsters you're describing.

If you missed it, here it is again.

This is where the problem lies, people thinking it involves a form of conscience, thinking. That's a huge misunderstanding. Natural selection, keeping the good, out with the bad; is the result of survival of the fittest.

Say we have a wild dog, it gives birth to a litter of ten puppies. Eight of these puppies have thin fur, two have thick fur; and it's a very long and cold winter. Which puppies are likely to survive the winter? Right. The two with thick fur. So which puppies will grow and give birth to the next generation? The two that survived...and so the next generation will have the thicker fur because they inherited it from the parents. The genes for thinner fur will eventually be filtered out as the dogs with thin fur aren't able to survive.

Here's a small picture I did for another thread a while back:





See my last point.

If you're not going to make the effort to appreciate any thing that's written because it contradicts with your beliefs, what are you doing here?

It's interesting when people make these kinds of statements. Just how extensive is this evidence? Not very. Such a minute fraction of the Earth has been subjected to "scientific" research that any conclusions that are drawn fossil records are extremely, extremely, extremely tenuous at best.

Almost every science text makes this claim?! Which ones, TP? I'm curious to know, for in all of my forty years, I have never used a text--nor sat in a high school or collegiate class-room--that made the claim we evolved from apes (or monkeys). A common ancestor, yes. Please provide some examples.

Intelligent Design
http://home.austarnet.com.au/stear/intelligent_design.htm

Evolution, Brown University
http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html

Frequently Asked Questions About Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/index.html

National Center for Science Education
http://www.ncseweb.org/article.asp?category=12

Live Science
http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/050922_ID_main.html

The Smithsonian Institution: Human Origins Program
http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/

The Evidence for Human Evolution
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/

Kindly,

Sean

I think people are having a hard time understanding what the term "common ancestor" means.

Pretend this is an evolutionary tree:

.......A
...../...\
...B......C

So like I described earlier with speciation, we have a land mass. This continent is inhabited with a species of animal called "A". At a certain point in time, the land mass is seperated and so becomes two islands. Both of these islands are inhabited with "A".

As time goes on, "A", on both islands, evolves. However on both islands it evolves differently. So in 5 million years, on one island "A" evolved in to "B", and on the other island "A" evolved in to "C".

Now B and C are two different species, but they came from one common ancestor, A.

Now pretend B= Humans, C= Chimpanzees (harder to imagine, because the two are not directly related like this!). But if you look back at the evolutionary tree, A is the species which gave 'birth' to the lineage of humans aswell as chimpanzees.

If you pretend B= Humans, C= Bear, you'll have to go way, way back on the evolutionary tree to see where both of our lineages meet, and so the common ancestor is not an ape, but rather some obscure mammal.

So the term common ancestor is variable, it depends on which two species you're comparing.

i'm sure everyone here understands the word common and the word ancestor...

we just don't believe it...

...no.

I refuse to let you slide on this. You keep on saying "We evolved from Apes". Which is not only ignorant on your part, but it's getting annoying.

Might as well save your breath Dr. his mind is made up and no matter what is posted, he will refuse to change his mind. The theory of evolution is contrary to his religious beliefs, and therefore will lose.

Goes both ways, I suppose. In the end, though, one can subscribe to every scientific theory out there, but it won't make a smidge of difference. Having faith in and loving God, on the other hand, does.

whatever floats your boat and brings you comfort.

Geez, Richard Leakey seems to think that we descended from apes too!
http://www.cbc.ca/news/story/2007/02/06/tech-kenya.html

There's more to it than just "comfort". Much, much more...

You're not in a position to disbelieve it. You should be able to grasp the most fundamental concept of it before you say you don't believe it, and apparently you don't.

I don't disbelieve the theory of evolution... I simply believe that our development was guided. I don't think that the existence of the evolutionary process disproves the existence of God or vice versa. Why does one have to exclude the other?

Leakey is correct. And I'm sure if asked, he would clarify his response to echo that of RaptorX7. Quite frankly, it can get a little complicated and confusing. I know it is for me. Had to pour over mounds of material to refresh my memory--and it gave me a bloody headache!

1. Did we evolve from monkeys?

Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids.

Learn More
Human Evolution
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/07/index.html

2. How did humans evolve?

Since the earliest hominid species diverged from the ancestor we share with modern African apes, 5 to 8 million years ago, there have been at least a dozen different species of these humanlike creatures. Many of these hominid species are close relatives, but not human ancestors. Most went extinct without giving rise to other species. Some of the extinct hominids known today, however, are almost certainly direct ancestors of Homo sapiens. While the total number of species that existed and the relationships among them is still unknown, the picture becomes clearer as new fossils are found. Humans evolved through the same biological processes that govern the evolution of all life on Earth. See "What is evolution?", "How does natural selection work?", and "How do organisms evolve?"

Learn More
Origins of Humankind
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/humans/h...kind/index.html

Kindly,

Sean

This is just for fun. Time for a laugh.

Evolution Schmevolution: The Daily Show's four day special report: "Evolution Schmevolution"
http://exchristian.net/exchristian/2005/09...hmevolution.php

Sean

You are correct, of course. There are a number of scientists that see a compatibility between evolution and the Bible, when one realizes that the period decribed as "days" in the Bible may actually be epochs covering vast expanses of time. In the first Genesis account, life correctly begins in the sea. Then there is a period of birds and "dragons" (Tannyn) that are incorrectly translated as whales in some Bible, but in reality are what we know today are dinosaurs. Then there is a new epoch of mammals and finally man.

In the original Sumerian Genesis story on which the bible one was based, Adam is not the "first man". The world was already filled with people, and adam lived in the stoneage city of Eridu. You can visit the place in Iraq today. Nor were people supposed to be immortal in the original story, these fantasy elements were simply added later by bored Hebrew shepherds.

It is amazing how so many Christians refuse to recognize that science and the Bible can be compatible, and would rather reduce its remarkable truths into absurd fairy tales because of their own egos that refuse to acknowledge man is another animal.

actually... you may want to re- read my post... i haven't said it since i was corrected... someone else DID say it... so...

that would make your statement not only ignorant but annoying...

and if you don't like it... take a look to the left... under my pic...

As I have stated over and over - Any religion that requires faith because of lack of evidence of the actual existence of the deity they worship, is nothing more than a false construct of the founder of that religion! Faith should not be necessary - look at this wonderful universe - that is all the evidence that you need. I see no maker's mark "Jehovah"/"Allah"/"Ahuru Mazda"/etc stamped on it's fabric!


Even if there were only one piece of evidence, it would be one billion fold more evidence than there is for any of the deities being worshiped today! Just an aside, since the evidence of the past is located in the strata of the rocks, any deity that planted that evidence (in order to fool his beloved creation, Man, into believing that the Earth is much much older than it is) is a liar. If he is a liar, then he is not perfect; a perfect entity would be incapable of lying. Even so, if he lied about the age of the Earth through subterfuge, then how can you accept anything he would have to say about salvation - after all, he has already proven himself to be a liar!

I totally agree.

the interesting thing is... what you don't see as evidence is all the evidence i need...

all of creation is the evidence...

let see you make a tree...

what you are asking us to believe is that all of the complexities we see on earth can be the product of mere accident... but humans... with as much knowledge as we have... can't create a tree from scratch...

if we do manage to ever make a tree... it will be because there is already a blueprint for one...

sorry... i don't have enough FAITH in your cosmic accident... because there is no proof that points to it... so that would mean whoever first thought of this all as an accident was a liar... according to what you said above...

No one's saying there is proof, but there's lots of evidence; which your belief lacks.

i said it before and i'll say it again... the fact that the world exists is proof enough for me not to believe this was an accident... just because YOU choose not to accept it as proof doesn't mean it's not proof...

there are too many coincidences to be a coincidence....

there is too much order for it all to be a big accident... so as far as i'm concerned... my evidence vastly out weighs your evidence...

First of all, we're not talking about supposed scientific evidence in relation to biblical evidence; it was simply a statement about the former, and if you really care to look at it objectively the amount of evidence to back up claims made by science is extremely minute. If you are so keen on being critical about the supposed lack of biblical evidence for God, creation etc., then it only stands to reason that you should view scientific "evidence" in the same manner.

As for the rest of your post, what you assert of course is not new and is really typical of people who haven't read the Bible or don't quite understand what is written in it. As I understand it, God is all-powerful, has the ability to create and the ability to destroy, but I don't get the impression that he's perfect. He does admit to making a mistake in how he created humans, and as a result instructed Noah to build an ark so that he and his family and the creatures of the Earth could be spared during the flood which was meant to rectify the problem. As for your claim that God is a "liar," well, again, this really seems to bely a true understanding of what is written in the Bible or the fact that when it comes down to it, humans can't really fully comprehend the reason behind much of what God has done and continues to do. Whether or not God created fossil, I don't know; it certainly doesn't specifically state this as being the case in the Bible, but if it is the case, the fact that he did so because he is a "liar" is a little absurd, don't you think? It would seem to me that what it really constitutes is perhaps a "test of faith," which is commonplace in the Bible. Then there is always the possibility that the fossils got there as has been theorized by science since the Bible doesn't esactly state how old the Earth is, even though it's likely that the Earth's age should be measured in thousands of years rather than millions, whereby it is really humans who are deceiving themselves, wouldn't you say?