This may not be an original line of thought, but it just came up in my head.

What if evolution is accidental? What if a creature was born with a mutation that, instead of hindering it's survival, actually boosted it's chances. Since it didn't die, it passed it on to it's offspring. Eventually the only ones left would all have that "defect". Would that not explain why there are no "transitional" fossils?

Good thought.

This is fast becoming the mainstream view among many of the sciences
though I believe biologists are still a little dubious.

I suspect many people have suspected this nearly since the time of Darwin
and this was what I was taught as a boy though my education was "unusual".

Logic would seem to dictate that this is the case. The lack of physical evi-
dence of many intermediary species also would lead one in this direction.

This line of thinking leads one to think that the greatest human advancement
occurred 40 to 50,000 years ago when there was an individual born with a
supersized speech center which allowed for more communication of more com-
plex ideas an the ability to pass information to succeeding generations.

But there are a great many transitional fossils. In a way, every animal, except whatever one is last on the evolutionary tree branch, is a transitional species. Even the last ones are potentially transitional.

You might not see it, but it's very likely that one day penguins will be considered transitional species to some future species of bird that lives only in the water. Similarly, otters or sealions could be considered transitional. As could any flightless bird. That's just a short list of some of the more obvious ones.

These are just a few examples. For examples of transitional species in fossils, I suggest you take a look at whale evolution. It's very well documented. So is the evolution of the horse. The fossil record for both of these species contain several transitionals.

However, evolution is "accidental," but it's accidental in a way that also involves nonrandomness. There are mechanisms, in other words, like survival.

Harte

This idea seems very reasonable to me. Considering the number of factors both internal and external that can cause mutations to occur, it seems likely that this theory is very close to fact. Also, not every mutation would cause changes in the skeletal system that would be easily detected, so such fossils may not be recognized as mutations in the first place. That is the most interesting thing about mutations, their randomness. Or so it appears anyway.

Good Journey.

Kyle Rajasthan.

I think you may be defining, more or less, how evolution is currently understood. I'm sure to the apes that gave birth to the first humans thought the opposable thumb was a ugly defect.

When we talk of transitional skeleton none have been found for any species the only thing we have is isolated animals on islands seem to be different from those that are not confined to an isolated location. We should have literally millions of transitional fossils of all sorts of creatures if evolution were real but we have none not any from any species.

So what: you just don't like what Harte said so you're going to ignore it completely?
Isn't that a bit like a five-year-old covering his eyes and saying "I'm invisible!"?

--Jaylemurph

"Why do gaps exist? (or seem to exist)
Ideally, of course, we would like to know each lineage right down to the species level, and have detailed species-to-species transitions linking every species in the lineage. But in practice, we get an uneven mix of the two, with only a few species-to-species transitions, and occasionally long time breaks in the lineage. Many laypeople even have the (incorrect) impression that the situation is even worse, and that there are no known transitions at all. Why are there still gaps? And why do many people think that there are even more gaps than there really are?

Stratigraphic gaps
The first and most major reason for gaps is "stratigraphic discontinuities", meaning that fossil-bearing strata are not at all continuous. There are often large time breaks from one stratum to the next, and there are even some times for which no fossil strata have been found. For instance, the Aalenian (mid-Jurassic) has shown no known tetrapod fossils anywhere in the world, and other stratigraphic stages in the Carboniferous, Jurassic, and Cretaceous have produced only a few mangled tetrapods. Most other strata have produced at least one fossil from between 50% and 100% of the vertebrate families that we know had already arisen by then (Benton, 1989) -- so the vertebrate record at the family level is only about 75% complete, and much less complete at the genus or species level. (One study estimated that we may have fossils from as little as 3% of the species that existed in the Eocene!) This, obviously, is the major reason for a break in a general lineage. To further complicate the picture, certain types of animals tend not to get fossilized -- terrestrial animals, small animals, fragile animals, and forest-dwellers are worst. And finally, fossils from very early times just don't survive the passage of eons very well, what with all the folding, crushing, and melting that goes on. Due to these facts of life and death, there will always be some major breaks in the fossil record.

Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark's Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark's Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the most rapid evolutionary bursts. In general, in order to document transitions between species, you specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on. These are rough estimates (from Gingerich, 1976, 1980) but should give an idea of the completeness required.

Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren't enough fossils, we can't tell which way it happened."
From:http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional/part1a.html#gaps


An interesting example of a species that evolved in the sea then came onto the land then returned to the sea is the whale:
"Call it an unfinished story, but with a plot that's a grabber. It's the tale of an ancient land mammal making its way back to the sea, becoming the forerunner of today's whales. In doing so, it lost its legs, and all of its vital systems became adapted to a marine existence -- the reverse of what happened millions of years previously, when the first animals crawled out of the sea onto land.

Some details remain fuzzy and under investigation. But we know for certain that this back-to-the-water evolution did occur, thanks to a profusion of intermediate fossils that have been uncovered over the past two decades.

In 1978, paleontologist Phil Gingerich discovered a 52-million-year-old skull in Pakistan that resembled fossils of creodonts -- wolf-sized carnivores that lived between 60 and 37 million years ago, in the early Eocene epoch. But the skull also had characteristics in common with the Archaeocetes, the oldest known whales. The new bones, dubbed Pakicetus, proved to have key features that were transitional between terrestrial mammals and the earliest true whales. One of the most interesting was the ear region of the skull. In whales, it is extensively modified for directional hearing underwater. In Pakicetus, the ear region is intermediate between that of terrestrial and fully aquatic animals.

Another, slightly more recent form, called Ambulocetus, was an amphibious animal. Its forelimbs were equipped with fingers and small hooves. The hind feet of Ambulocetus, however, were clearly adapted for swimming. Functional analysis of its skeleton shows that it could get around effectively on land and could swim by pushing back with its hind feet and undulating its tail, as otters do today.

Rhodocetus shows evidence of an increasingly marine lifestyle. Its neck vertebrae are shorter, giving it a less flexible, more stable neck -- an adaptation for swimming also seen in other aquatic animals such as sea cows, and in an extreme form in modern whales. The ear region of its skull is more specialized for underwater hearing. And its legs are disengaged from its pelvis, symbolizing the severance of the connection to land locomotion.

By 40 million years ago, Basilosaurus -- clearly an animal fully adapted to an aquatic environment -- was swimming the ancient seas, propelled by its sturdy flippers and long, flexible body. Yet Basilosaurus still retained small, weak hind legs -- baggage from its evolutionary past -- even though it could not walk on land.

None of these animals is necessarily a direct ancestor of the whales we know today; they may be side branches of the family tree. But the important thing is that each fossil whale shares new, whale-like features with the whales we know today, and in the fossil record, we can observe the gradual accumulation of these aquatic adaptations in the lineage that led to modern whales.

As evolutionary biologist Neil Shubin points out, "In one sense, evolution didn't invent anything new with whales. It was just tinkering with land mammals. It's using the old to make the new."
From: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_05.html

Accidental evolution sounds like a good thing though.
The earth has gone through many periods of growth and decline.
During the first period of growth, you can picture volcanoes making hills and valleys, then the grass and herbs growing, then trees, then insects, then bigger things, then it declines.
The next period same thing but longer period of growth and the prior volcanoes have made a bottom limit, a floor. The volcanoes now start forming stratified levels. The stratified gaps are caused by the formation of oil. Oil will start forming after maybe a couple of periods because of the weight of the earth, especially molten earth. The life that grows on earth, as far as the animals go, is sparse, you do not have Mastidons all over the earth. There may be pockets here and there and they will have adapted to their environment. A whale is a whale, you can usually spot them. A humpback whale is a whale as much as the Sperm whale is. Within species it is adaptation. This gets into if the environment gets too crowded with a certain species and it has adapted as much as it can and the cycle is still going, there might be some kind of contact between a higher and lower organism, such as man and cancer, or man and AIDS, or man and stupidity. The accidental evolution in that would be a stupid man or a dead man. Y'all forget, before a person is born he survives in water. The water breaks and he is born. He develops in water. The only thing is, the forming person does not breathe until he comes out for air after the alloted time.
Is man accidental? I don't think so. Man was created by everything to care for everything. He develops as a fish, he grows as chimpanzee, he then flies like a bird. He even looks like a turtle in his car. He tries to run like a rabbit or a greyhound. He even builds high-rise mounds like an ant. Has man divorced Eve?
But, the transitional fossil between man and God is memory.

We know that Life writes the best stories, but there is to much accident involved to have this stage of evolution that we have now.
Evolution with a touch of creationizm, this is how I would describe it.

Here is at least 2 known transitional fossils: The Archaeopteryx and the Tiktaalik http://www.americanscientist.org/template/...?&print=yes
Transitional fossils are species developing into another species, like a lizard to bird not a species evolving into a better version or different version of it's own species. There is not many true, but 2 is not none.

No. Evolution including us the universe as a whole is no accident...

JMPO.

it's no accident unless you accidently asked that

humanbeings are the only ones who need to evolve and it's not a physical process

evolution is spiritual

from dark to light
from light to dark
from dark to darker
from light to lighter

...as we wish

Just a few of the things I have posted over the years........

SPECIATION / MACROEVOLUTION EVIDENCE

Collection of Resources
That Most Effectively Point to Macroevolution

Mostly found on the ENSI site.
SPECIATION / MACROEVOLUTION EVIDENCE

The evidence for "microevolution" (adaptive changes within species) is supported by an abundance of easily observed examples. However, "macroevolution" (including speciation and the formation of all major groups of organisms by that same process repeated over millions of years), is not as obvious to many people. Nevertheless, there are several different lines of evidence that do indeed point to this very convincingly. Take the time to explore the online links mentioned to further extend your understanding, and, more importantly, help your students to explore these, too.

Chromosome Comparisons: First, there are the very striking similarities between all of our chromosomes and those of the apes. Take a look at this at http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chro.all.html. For an even sharper version (if you have wideband internet access, e.g. DSL), be sure to scroll to the bottom of that page and download the high resolution PDF file mentioned there. The result is quite suitable for printing copies for your students to study. You might even want to use one of the ENSI lessons that give students a chance to study these more closely, including clear examples of inversions, etc.: The Chromosome Connection, at http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chr.con2.html, and Comparison of Human and Chimpanzee Chromosomes, at http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/chromcom.html.

Most people assume that chromosome numbers are a constant for each species and that this supposedly prevents functional fertility between species. It turns out that this is quite true. A particularly revealing article can be found at http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html. It's only about two pages, but be sure to read it all, especially the few paragraphs beyond the chromosome diagrams, regarding chromosome variations within a species, and fertility between species. There are a number of examples where different species, with different chromosome numbers, have produced fertile offspring.

Even more impressive (in that same article, and also discussed on another site: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/articles/chi...hromosome.html) is the clear evidence that our chromosome #2 is a result of the end-to-end fusion of two shorter chromosomes (found today in apes: chimps, gorillas, and orangutans), probably very early in our hominid line, after chimps and gorillas branched off on their own lines from our common ancestor. The banding patterns of those chromosomes provide a strong indication of this, and subsequent DNA sequencing further confirms it. If that fusion indeed did happen, then we should be able to find evidence of chromosome ends meeting near the middle of chromosome #2. As it happens, all chromosomes have many repeats of the same DNA sequence at both ends (telomeres). Upon inspection, such "tandem repeats" are indeed found in the region of chromosome 2 exactly where they must have fused. This is very compelling, something very hard to explain either by special creation or intelligent design, but easy to explain as an event in evolution.

Our new Chromosome Fusion lesson can be used in biology classes for students to find those same DNA sequences using the same internet tools and databases that scientists use. http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.fus.les.html.

In addition, there are the patterns of molecular evidence that make sense only if macroevolution has occurred. One of several lessons on this site is the comparison of beta hemoglobin in primates, at http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/mol.prim.html. Similar studies have been done with a huge number of species and many different proteins, all with similar indications: macroevolution.

And don't overlook the abundant fossil evidence, much of it pointing clearly to macroevolution. A most revealing resource showing this is "Transitional Fossils", summarized from a much larger article on the Talk Origins site (see link to the original article in that summary), by Kathleen Hunt: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/c.bkgrnd.html.

A very recent addition (Jan. 2006) to the TalkOrigins site is "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc. Finally, be sure to check out the long list of actual Observed Examples of Speciation, at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html.

Additional ENSI lessons that reflect macroevolution include the following:
Becoming Whales: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/theor.ch.html
Hominid Cranium Comparisons: http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/hom.cran.html



Why limit ourselves to just animal evolution.......

Fish Evolution
Insect Evolution
Plant Evolution

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

On a side note on Mice and Men......

Among the findings are that mice and human beings both carry about 30,000 genes. Differences within these individual genes -- the precise sequences of the four-letter DNA code -- spell out the obvious differences between the two mammalian species. On a letter-by-letter basis, the genes are 85 percent the same.

Comparing the two genomes provides an evolutionary history of the two species, traced out in the diverging sequences of DNA. Mice, compared with humans, are more richly endowed in genes for sex, sense of smell, and immunity against pathogens.
sfgate.com


As I have said in the past....'The truth is elusive to those of who refuse to seek it with both eyes wide open.'


(Not sure if all of the links still work)

its not that, show me one transitional skeleton, I always here there are a lot of examples, but I have yet to have anyone produce even on example of a transitional fossil. Show me and I will believe

those dont look like transitional fossils to me look like an extinct creature that resembles some other creature but not enough to think it evolved into that creature

These might help

What Is A Transitional Fossil?

Link 1

Link 2

Link 3

Link 4

here is what I am looking for I want to see not a massive transition just something evolving in a known species, if evolution has been going on forever then there should be some clear cut evidence I want to see a fossil where there is no debate what it is that is in transition such as a fish that looks like a lizard and is starting to grow legs instead of fins something like that. I dont know how many times I have asked for this evidence yet none is forthcoming all the so called transitional fossils would require massive change to be what they claim they are. I want something I cant refute. still waiting, good links though.

Thats not how it works. What would be the evolutionary benifit of a stump?

The mainstream definition of evolution is- the change in a populations gene pool over time. Mainstream scientists (and the way it is taught in school) is that evolution is a set of mutations over time that will either benefit the species, and it will live and thrive; but if the mutation does not benefit the species, it will die out.

The thing I hate and disagree with is the people who say that the first animals, or the first living things, all came about due to a mere chance. If you believe in that, then you are an idiot. Evolution teaches that speecies all come from common ancestors, but not all common ancestors are related. This means that in the beginning, there had to have been multiple, seperate living organisms (related in no way, but all similiar due only to the fact that they have life) had to have been "spontaniously generated", and one of the three Cell Laws is that cells (the most basic form of life that we know of) have to come from other cells and can not "spontaniously generate.

Virtually all life on Earth seems to share a common ancestor. Everything from
oak trees to humans share large amounts of DNA. This would seem to imply
that it came from outside the planet. It might have drifted in on the solar wind.
Or maybe our planet just sliced through the residue of a planet whose sun went
nova.

Species can change gradually through "survival of the fittest" and most species
come under extreme stress from time to time which will force faster changes as
large percentages of individuals are destroyed.

There are means by which chemicals or organisms can become more complex.
In all probability most planets simply don't have a chance to develop life because,
like Earth, it gets seeded from the outside first.

Do what now? Because things are similar -- because they have a common ancestor -- they come from another planet?!
Maybe you could parse that for me: it seems decidedly counter-intuitive.

--Jaylemurph

Perhaps I should have noted as well that vast amounts of this DNA code has no
known purpose and is believed to be obsolete.

There's no time in known Earth history that an oak and a man had much in com-
mon so why would they share great amounts of identical DNA?

...because ultimately they share the same ancestor?

--Jaylemurph

I may be missing something here, but all this, except the last sentence, IS a summary of Darwin's theory. We may have modified it a little, given a modern understanding of genetics, and debate whether changes were gradual or very rapid, but you have outlined the basics of the original theory.

I agree with other posters that, in a way, all fossils are transitional. For example, i just watched a recent documentary which showed how the jawbone of humans is continuing an adaptation ongoing from paleolothic times which has dramatically changed the shape of the human skull.In any observable time period,however, we would not notice any physical change.

Other changes appear to occur almost within a human generation, such as the classic change in colour of the moths in England from white to grey during the industrial revolution, and then back to their original colouration once the environment was no longer covered in a layer of grey soot.

As to whether life originated on earth or not, we can eastablish that if all life originated from single cell organisms on earth they will have some commonality in DNA. The really interesting evidence will come in when we find organic material "off- planet". If this also has a common DNA signature then the seeding theory suddenly gains a lot more credence. While some meteorites have been examined for such evidence, nothing conclusive has been found as far as i know.

shows transition to a land animal how else would it work? if we are evolving does that mean changes are massive and sudden in evolution, I thought it was a very slow process so there should be some transiton from one creature to another or the evolving of one creature into a more advanced creature.

Actually, there is a lot in common. We both have a celular structure, we both are carbon-based..... I could go on.

A coal shed and a Palace have little in common, but they are both made of bricks.

Well.. palaces are often made of marble .. but you know what I mean.

Meow Purr.

I believe in a mixture of both as well.

Thats not an advantage, in evolutionary terms. The changes made are not along the lines of nothing becoming a stump becoming a bigger stump becoming a hand if the stump has no purpose. Its an all or nothing type deal. A stump instead of a fin would be a detriment to start with, since it would slow down the animal, thus aiding the animal to die before it passes on its genes.



It is a slow process since it deals with individual traits and such. And there are transitional fossils, but due to your poor knowledge of the workings of evolution, you dont accept them.

I am still waiting to see this evidence everyone says they have, I havent seen any evidence that shows that evolution is any more valid than creation is. They are still both just theories and have no supporting evedence that I can find at all. the transitional fossils I have been shown dont look like transitional fossils to me just look like extinct animals that didnt make it.

What sort of background in biology do you have?

...but if you don't know much about evolution, then you don't really know what you're looking for, then do you?
It would take some training to appreciate the evidence you're examining -- if you didn't know how to wire a house, would you tell an electrician he's not doing it correctly?

Zandore and Harte both have already gone to the trouble of providing some links for you that are exactly on-topic to your statement.

--Jaylemurph

Things to ponder......

The Poor Fossil Record

Once again, creationists' logic arises to bite them in the hindquarters:
Creationists often use the paucity of the fossil record as evidence against evolution, claiming that if the world were millions of years old, and life on Earth had evolved over such a vast period of time, then you should expect to find billions upon billions of fossilized organisms. This, as they are more than happy to point out, is not the case [but it is a typical creationist straw man -RJR]. But lack of preservation is exactly what you would expect under natural conditions, as the chances of a decaying organism hanging around long enough to be preserved are remote.

However, if the fossil record were the result of a global flood, then high rates of preservation would be expected, as all organisms were subjected to the same conditions. Remember that sedimentation rates were mindblowing fast (fast enough to form the Grand Canyon in a year!) Analysis of varves also demonstrates that thousands of acres of sediment would have to have been laid down every second, so organisms would have been buried before they even had the chance to decay. Under these conditions you would expect to find billions of perfectly preserved organisms, but as any creationist will tell you, the fossil record is actually very poor. Doh!
-Stu Killick

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

Digitized Natural Selection

Computer scientists (and the big corporations that pay them), have started doing what nature has been doing all along. To arrive at some good-enough solutions to some practically intractable problems (the kind that would take a Cray supercomputer the probable life of the universe to solve--like the absolute best design for a new airliner), they teach a computer to try a bunch of random solutions. Most will be worthless or impractical. Some will work a little better than most. The best ones are allowed to produce "offspring" with random modifications. Most of these won't be improvements, and many will be worse than the "parents." A few may be slightly better, however, and they will be allowed to reproduce for another "generation." Continue this for enough generations, and the end product will be a decent solution. It probably won't be the theoretical best (a quality which couldn't be determined without solving the original unsolvable problem), but it will be workable.
This is exactly analogous to natural selection, so of course "it can't possibly work" since "random mutations can only be harmful." Sorry, but it works so well in nature that it has produced hummingbirds and eagles, and so well in the R & D department that it is being used to design aircraft!

~Unknown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Convergent Evolution

And once again, from down under:
Convergent evolution. I'm thinking specifically of Thylacinus cynocephalus [AKA the Tasmanian wolf]. Here we have a marsupial with all the outward appearance of a member of the dog family, a placental group. Plus all those cute little marsupial 'mice' running around in the outback. [Why would God invent a whole new "wolf" when He had perfectly good ones already? These sure didn't "microevolve" from two of the dog "kind"!]

Something like the wetas of New Zealand must give them fits, too. Since there were no land mammals until the Maoris introduced rats, these insects related to grasshoppers and katydids grew to outlandish proportions to fill the niche that small mammals take up elsewhere.

Or maybe God was just in a puckish mood and decided to create somethin' reeeeaal ugly!
-David Bailey


EDIT: Thanks Jay!

Why would I need to be a biologist to be able to understand transitional fossil, I didnt ask for a scientific explanation I asked to be shown some evidence for evolution, now if you are saying that the only way I could understand them is if I was formally trained in biology. That to me means there is no obvious example of evolution that anyone can show me. Which also means that unless you have someone tell you what transitional fossil should be then you dont know what one is, this is pure rubbish. All I was trying to establish is that evolution is not fact it is just a theory, as is creation we dont know for sure which theory is correct. If evolution was fact we would have obvious examples to prove our point, that someone who hasnt been brainwashed in college, would be able to see. We dont have that we have things which scientist claim are transitional fossils. I looked at the evidence they presented at it was good just not cut and dry evidence for evolution.

A news article I found a while ago


The Archbishop of Canterbury has condemned the teaching of creationism in schools. In an interview with Guardian editor Alan Rusbridger, Dr Rowan Williams said the Biblical creation stories do not belong in the same category as evolutionary theory.

He explained: "My worry is creationism can end up reducing the doctrine of creation rather than enhancing it." Creationists and proponents of intelligent design (ID) - the "alternative theory" to evolution by natural selection - assert that the natural world must have had a designer.

Moves in the United States to teach ID alongside evolution have had some success. Last August, at the height of the controversy, President Bush said: "Both sides ought to be properly taught...so people can understand what the debate is about."

Dr Williams's comments indicate he believes that creationism and evolution are not two sides of the same coin, however. He said: "I think creationism is...a kind of category mistake, as if the Bible were a theory like other theories. If creationism is presented as a stark alternative theory alongside other theories I think there's just been a jarring of categories."
SOURCE

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

Intelligent Design is not science, and has no place in science lessons, according to the Vatican's chief astronomer, the Rev. George Coyne. According to the Italian news agency, ANSA, Father Coyne was speaking informally at a conference in Florence when he said that intelligent design "isn't science, even though it pretends to be."

He argued that if it is to be taught in schools, then it should be taught in religion or cultural history classes, but that it should not be on the science curriculum.

Proponents of intelligent design argue that life on Earth is just too complex to have arisen without the aid of some kind of designer. ID's critics point out that its main tenets are highly unscientific and untestable, and say that it is merely creationism in disguise.

Father Coyne has consistently argued against regarding intelligent design as scientific. In June he wrote in Catholic magazine The Tablet:

"If they respect the results of modern science, and indeed the best of modern biblical research, religious believers must move away from the notion of a dictator God or a designer God, a Newtonian God who made the universe as a watch that ticks along regularly."
SOURCE


Religion is more and more going against ID.

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

"The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?
Francis S. Collins,
Director National Human Genome Research Institute, writing in Faith and the Human Genome"

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

My profile quote in Latin:

Evolution est utriusque res quod ratio.
Creationism est neither.

In English it is:

Evolution is both fact and theory.
Creationism is neither.

You might do well to learn just what a "THEORY" is:

What is the ``scientific method''?

The scientific method is the best way yet discovered for winnowing the truth from lies and delusion. The simple version looks something like this:

* 1. Observe some aspect of the universe.
* 2. Invent a tentative description, called a hypothesis, that is consistent with what you have observed.
* 3. Use the hypothesis to make predictions.
* 4. Test those predictions by experiments or further observations and modify the hypothesis in the light of your results.
* 5. Repeat steps 3 and 4 until there are no discrepancies between theory and experiment and/or observation.

When consistency is obtained the hypothesis becomes a theory and provides a coherent set of propositions which explain a class of phenomena. A theory is then a framework within which observations are explained and predictions are made.

The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as [*] belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.

A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations are repeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied.

More>> physics.ucr.edu

Do you know that if it was not for some theories.....we would not be....chatting here on line......

Why is it so hard for you people to believe the story of Genesis, or atleast that there was a greater power (God) that created all life!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Funny you should ask.

I had been trying to tie Genesis into the presence of Geyzers on the Giza Plateau which would have been the Garden of Eden. Unfortunately there is insufficient evidence for this area being a geyser basin. It does have many similarities but experts tell me it is too improbable.

It presents an incredible and compelling picture if sailing up the Nile Delta and seeing dozens of active geyser spraying mists and water high into the air. The ancients would see that these fed the Gihon (Western Nile) (it means "gushing forth") and believe that these constituted the headwaters for the Tigris and Euphrates as is said in Genesis. Noah's flood would have been a common occurance in the Nile Valley. The great ages of the people might simply be family lines or more specifically the geneology for the oral traditions. This would simply make Adam the mutation which gave rise to language. He did name the animals and in a sense it is language which created the heavens and the Earth in the beginning.

It works out well under 40,000 years but what do you want for oral traditions passed down for so long a time.

Perhaps the Supernatural is merely an aspect of physics that we do not yet understand. If this world and the life on it is a result of intelligent design then that intelligence must be physical in nature and the 'supernatural' powers it expresses are entirely real ergo; we and the world we live on are a product super-physical design.
Within the next two centuries man will have the ability to creat life in the laboratory and when he does it is only natural to expect him to attempt to create a new species. When he does he will be on the road to attaining the same powers of that super-physical being or beings that created us and the world we live on. What will those that WE create think of US?

Why is it so hard for you to understand that not all believe in the same concept of a good/evil deity as you do.


BTW..... on Genesis......I would iterate that they are nothing more than possibilities based on egregiously inadequate information and data.

Why is it so difficult for you to even try to understand the fundamental underpinnings of modern biology and geology, instead of simply stumbling along without questioning the creation story associated with your particular sky pixie? For that matter, why is it so hard for you to accept the creation of Minnesota's lakes by Paul Bunyan? Or the creation of the Atlas Mountains in Africa by Perseus showing the head of Medusa to Atlas the Titan?

As for Murdock, we've been trying to point out to you what a transitional fossil is. Everything technically is a transitional fossil, but if you want to see a closely related species that was either a predecessor or cousin species of modern H. Sapiens, just look at the fossils found constituting the Hominid record. Specifically, H. Neanderthalensis (whose DNA was recently sequenced), H. Erectus, H. Habilis, archaic H. Sapiens, A. Afarensis, A. Africanus - there's a number of fossils of each,all of which constitute closely related species to humanity that illustrate how evolution works. If you don't accept that, then honestly, you either don't understand, or just don't accept evolution.

First of all, please don't call God a "sky pixie".

Second of all, I have looked into the "fundamental underpinnings of modern biology" (of geology I have no interest and was not discusing)

Below is my earlier post on this topic in quotes:

"The mainstream definition of evolution is- the change in a populations gene pool over time. Mainstream scientists (and the way it is taught in school) is that evolution is a set of mutations over time that will either benefit the species, and it will live and thrive; but if the mutation does not benefit the species, it will die out.

The thing I hate and disagree with is the people who say that the first animals, or the first living things, all came about due to a mere chance. If you believe in that, then you are an idiot. Evolution teaches that speecies all come from common ancestors, but not all common ancestors are related. This means that in the beginning, there had to have been multiple, seperate living organisms (related in no way, but all similiar due only to the fact that they have life) had to have been "spontaniously generated", and one of the three Cell Laws is that cells (the most basic form of life that we know of) have to come from other cells and can not "spontaniously generate. "

I beleive in Evolution in the way that I have described above. It is only the idea that people think that organisms just appeared, without the help of a supreme being, that I don't agree with. I have a better chance at spitting around the world 3 times than that happening

I won't, since you asked politely. But my point was that shouting in Caps Locks does not an argument make.



Parts of geology tie into and support evolution, like the evidence we have on the age of the Earth from radioactive dating.



That's natural selection, which is a part of evolution, but just one part (the other major component being Random Genetic Drift), and not necessarily even the strongest part (RGD might actually be stronger in terms of leading to speciation, although I think this is still a minority opinion in the biology community).



What they're actually claiming is that the first, simple, replicating molecule arose from the 'primordial soup', whatever it specifically was - and that, in of itself, isn't too difficult to fathom having happened by chance conditions in said soup. There's already long-standing proposals of an RNA world that predated DNA, since RNA can replicate itself under certain conditions. Evolution actually teaches that all species do come from common ancestors, leading back to the oldest common ancestor - some form of eukaryotic cell creature- and that all common ancestors are related (why do you think the model of a tree is used to describe evolution?). Frankly, most of this paragraph is a serious misconception of what evolution is, if you think evolution claims that not all common ancestors are related.



You ought to look up some of the research on abiogenesis, then.

Hi Pandora - "I BELIEVE" evolution can be natural or accidental relative to the environment eg. a raindrop starts of alot of the time as ice/hail - a solid. As it falls into a warmer environment, it melts and turns into water - a liquid. By the time it hits the ground and disperses into smaller fragments it warms up and becomes steam - a gas. This is what I beleive to be a natural form of evolution which is transitional with the ice gradually turning into water and the water gradually turning into steam. However if the hail was falling and it got struck by lightning it would turn from ice- a solid, into steam - a gas almost instantly, making it leap its evoution into water and making a "missing link". "I BELIEVE" if you apply this to humans and the leaps of evolution that we supposedly made from apes you'd have to ask "well where is the lightning that made our evolution leap from monkeys to homo erectus then to homo sapiens and so on. Well "I BELIEVE" the quesetion is that we've been "struck by lightning" making us jump up levels without leaving transitional fossils or any evidence of us "slowly" evolving. The question is - "what was the lightining? Is it alien intervention? Is it GOD? Or was it comets or meteorites that (which have left scars on the earth) spewed their alien microorganisms over the earth making radical changes.
Cheers Pandora, your question really got the ants in my head working.

No, the first simple, unicellular animals were the product of proteins forming in the earth's oceans. The protiens clumped together to forum deoxyribonucleic acid, DNA, which held the first blueprints for life. more protiens and acids clumped and organized to form the basic cell, that we now call bacteria. They were cells that processed the ultraviolet rays from the sun, and carbon dioxde coming out of the earth's vets and volcanoes, thus creating the first stable atmosphere. And over millions and millions of years those first cells started turning into eukariotic life-forms, living off of the habitable O2 environment. Other cells kept the early life processes, but became eukariotic-- plants. Other bacteria cells stayed just that, bacteria. Life then branched off, animals becoming more complex and *evolving* to fit the earth's changing environment. Some animals ate the plants, some ate those animals, and others ate both. Plants evolved also, some becoming large trees, other small, airplants such as moss. Bacteria evolved in ways tyhat let them survive almost anything! From superheated ocean vents, to dry land, air and some can actually survive in non-atmosphereic environment! And so on and so forth until you have the current plant animal and single cell life-forms stretched out varieties. So please, do your research before posting erratic, and stupid ideas!

I must say it is very rude to call Odyseus' ideas stupid, in the future I suggest you refrain from that on these boards and it is not that stupid an idea actually. I have been involved in evolution debates on here and the fact is there is no proof of any dna or cell being able to form from nothing. It is scientific knowledge actually. It is the big hole in the whole evolution theory. "Spontaneously generated" is biogenesis and at this time it cannot be proven this happened. I checked book upon book and link upon link, provided explanations of how it 'could' have happened but it cannot be proven to have happened. It's true, cells have to come from other cells. Life cannot come from no life and no matter how it is presented all theories pertaining to this event come up zero. Don't worry, as an evolutionist at heart I wish it was possible but if you do your research you will find that it is impossible to prove.

thank you finally, all I have been trying to establish here is that evolution is not fact it is only a theory, and educated guess no more no less. We have no proof for creation and we have no proof for evolution so neither can be stated as fact. You cannot discuss a subject if one cannot even decide whether it is fact or theory. The truth is we dont know much at all about where we came from and to say we do is just arrogance. I dont think evolution is correct simply because it would require to much random chance for me. I beleive we were created by whom and for what purpose I have no idea but I definately think we are product of gene tampering just look at all the the flaws our jeans contain, random selection wouldnt account for all these defects, sounds like more of a mfg defect. LOL

No worries, I have been a die hard evolutionist for over 30 years but recently I had to admit this to myself after looking in every nook and cranny for the piece that made it work and it is not out there. After looking into various new ways of creation I do believe you are on the right track with 'gene tampering' though....

His ideas are ignorant of reality, the facts of what has been discovered, and of what evolution actually is in terms of biology, and constructed badly.

Incidently, if you were half as knowledgeable about evolution as you claim to be, you would know that the abiogenesis debate has absolutely no bearing on the validity of evolution, similar to the way Big Bang theory has no bearing on the validity of evolution. Supposing you somehow proved tomorrow that God created the first replicating molecule, or the universe in Big Bang form, it would mean nothing to evolution, since evolution is about the change over generations, not about the origin.

You also just used a typical strawman, by claiming that we're somehow claiming that a complex cell just emerged, and that that is impossible. Well, of course it's impossibly unlikely - but that's not what we're arguing. What has been argued in abiogenesis is that the origins of life lay in a replicating molecule that would have been ridiculously simple, and not unlikely to form if the history of life on Earth is correct (life arose not too long after the Hadean period in Earth's history, when the surface was still generally unstable due to the recent formation of the planets).

Murdock, if you are genuinely curious about evolution, and not just pulling the typical 'don't know anything about it but will argue that it's wrong' trope, go to Talk Origins. There's probably no better internet site for learning about what evolution actually is, how the mechanisms work, the evidence for it, and rebuttal of common claims, like the one that 'there is no evidence for it.'

I never said evolution was wrong just got tired of everyone treating evolution as fact instead of as a theory which is what it is. A fact is something known beyond a shadow of doubt with evidence to back it up. Evolution has not reached that point yet. I for one do not think we humans are the product of evolution.

In real life facts are very tenuous.

One fact though that is probably set in concrete is that if it's ever shown that there
is no validity to evolution then much of the basis for all science will have to be re-
written. Not that I have a problem with this nor do I believe it follows that a higher
power doesn't exist. There's no evidence that a higher power did or did not set all
the atoms in motion after defining all the laws of their behavior. My guess is that if
this occured it happened long before Adam looked up conceiving the heavens.

I'm also coming to believe you're right that man isn't the product of evolution; we are
much more the product of language. Language rules over our brains and defines how
they are able to function. There are still "laws" of how a flesh and blood brain can
function and humans do have numerous instincts but all is not only percieved mostly
through language but are driven by language. The speech center might have been
incidental to evolution but is most of what makes us human.

Technically, all of science consists of theories, including the Laws of Thermodynamics, Newton's Laws of Motion, and Newtonian Gravity, in the sense that we don't declare them to be 100% true; theoretically, however unlikely, something could fall upwards against gravity without the imposition of an outside force, disproving gravity. Although the creationists have done much to distort public perception on this issue, evolution's validity is up there with Thermodynamics (which is why the famous biologist Theodosius Dobhansky said that nothing in biology makes sense unless in the light of evolution), in that it has been proved so many times, and passed so many falsifiable tests coming from different angles of attack, that it's validity (and the general framework) is next to undeniably true.

In science, a 'fact' frequently refers to something that has been observed in nature. Evolution has been observed occurring in nature (in particular in terms of the evolution of various diseases, particularly AIDS and Antibiotic-resistant bacteria), which would make it a fact.

Again, I would strongly suggest that you visit the site I linked.