Atheism

[jayfox]

Massive gaps in the fossil record. The 'big creationist lie' as it is sometimes termed. Have a look at the evidence Jay (and Djevv) you will see that your assertion is baseless. There are MANY examples of transitionary forms in the fossil record. Try reading some palaeontology literature...it is available for you to check out and will provide the justification for their conclusions as opposed to the blind assertions you come across on creationist websites ("take my word for it....please").

Your second paragraph demonstrates an astounding ignorance of how evolution works. Yet you sit on your computer and dismiss it so easily. We evolved from apes? No. We share a common ancestor with apes. Without a doubt. Species don't change into other species. Populations become reproductively separated via any one of numerous mechanisms and they 'drift' apart genetically over time until they represent distinct species. Both populations can still exist and this can occur numerous times. Transitionary forms of humans...there are plenty of extinct human relatives in the fossil record.

Humans and chimpanzees shared a common ancestor approximately 5 million years ago. The differences we see today represent 5 million years of evolution of both species.

1. Re the fossil record. From what I have seen there is a lack of evidence for creatures being found in mid evolution between two species. By that, I do not mean that this particular individual is evolving but his species is evolving from one creature to another. When you look at how variant the creatures on earth are then there must be thousands of examples available that would undeniably prove an evolutionists point. But where are they? Any findings previously listed can be explained as wholly one type of creature and not a half way point between two.

2. God has deliberately changed many aspects of human life over the years which would have profound effects on what fossils we may find IMO. Examples are that in Noah's time it was not uncommon to live until 900 years old (until God changed this to 70-odd years on average). I was reading 1 Samuel last night which includes the story of David and Goliath which I am sure that you would have heard of. The Bible describes Goliath as being 9 ft tall! What would a scientist make of that discovery and what assumptions of the people of the time would he make if he had found Goliath's fossilized skeleton at 9ft tall? There are abnormalities in today's world too - with Dwarfs, Midgets, people with congenital defects or diseases etc. being born all over the world. If scientists in thousands of years time found the skeleton of the girl who was recently born with 4 arms and legs, what would they make of that? Would we have suddenly evolved from spiders? ;D

3. How much have chimps evolved in 5 million years if you don't mind me asking?

 

[Djevv]

Quote mining evolutionary biologists now. A cheap creationist trick. I wonder if you actually questioned these individuals whether they would agree with your opinion that macro-evolution, as creationists term it, does not occur. What you are quote mining here is discussions on the role of punctuated equilibrium in evolution. Niles Eldredge, whom you quote above, proposed punctuated equilibrium with the late Stephen Jay Gould. As you, no doubt, lifted these quotes from a creationist website without trying to understand the context they were written in, I will provide you with a quote from Gould on this matter:

Since we [Niles Eldredge & Gould] proposed punctuated equilibria to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists—whether through design or stupidity, I do not know—as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level, but they are abundant between larger groups.

It is clear that you are either attempting to mislead, or have been misled yourself.

If you want to actually have a debate on this matter, stick to the facts and refute the arguments that I make instead of resorting to lifted quote-mines from creationist websites.

Why do you suppose that that the paleontologists above came up with punctuated evolution? If you actually read what the quotes are saying you will find out!!

It's the GAPS that don't exist!

The point is that the GAPS mean that the species that are supposed to have evolved into one another could all have been alive at the same time - nothing more.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

1. Re the fossil record. From what I have seen there is a lack of evidence for creatures being found in mid evolution between two species. By that, I do not mean that this particular individual is evolving but his species is evolving from one creature to another. When you look at how variant the creatures on earth are then there must be thousands of examples available that would undeniably prove an evolutionists point. But where are they? Any findings previously listed can be explained as wholly one type of creature and not a half way point between two.

Mid-evolution between species? Read evo's last post....every species is a transitionary species, so to speak. I will state it again...species don't evolve into other species....a subpopulation of a species may evolve into a distinct species that co-habitats the earth at the same time...over time they drift apart genetically, morpholoically, physiologically etc. That is why species that share a common ancestor more recently are more similar genetically, morphologically, physiologically etc. There are many examples that prove that evolution has occurred from every field of biology (not just the fossil record). Where is the damning evidence that refutes the accumulated evidence of evolution that is the cornerstone of modern biology?

BTW what would a species half-way between 2 other species look like?

2. God has deliberately changed many aspects of human life over the years which would have profound effects on what fossils we may find IMO. Examples are that in Noah's time it was not uncommon to live until 900 years old (until God changed this to 70-odd years on average). I was reading 1 Samuel last night which includes the story of David and Goliath which I am sure that you would have heard of. The Bible describes Goliath as being 9 ft tall! What would a scientist make of that discovery and what assumptions of the people of the time would he make if he had found Goliath's fossilized skeleton at 9ft tall? There are abnormalities in today's world too - with Dwarfs, Midgets, people with congenital defects or diseases etc. being born all over the world. If scientists in thousands of years time found the skeleton of the girl who was recently born with 4 arms and legs, what would they make of that? Would we have suddenly evolved from spiders? ;D

I read a book last night too that discussed magical things. Yet I recognise it for what it was...a work of fiction. How can you claim the bible is evidence for the existence of a 9 foot man? Or for 900 year old human beings?

The 'abnormal' humans that you refer to have characteristic features that can be recognised in a skeleton. Read up on the so-called Hobbit fossil and the ongoing debate as to whether this represent a new hominid species or whether it represents a modern human with a developmental disorder. The palaeontologists involved in these debates are not idiots, nor are they unaware of the possibilities that you raise. That is why these issues are openly debated in the literature. If your argument is logically solid, then you are welcome to publish it. That is the beauty of science.

3. How much have chimps evolved in 5 million years if you don't mind me asking?

They have evolved for the last 5 million years. Humans have evolved for the 5 million years, not into our present form, but through a number of species (now extinct). Are you asking how much they have changed? In what way? Morphologically? Genetically (humans and chimps differ by ~2% of their DNA sequence and share the same chromosome order with the exception of a single fusion event)? Physiologically?

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

Why do you suppose that that the paleontologists above came up with punctuated evolution? If you actually read what the quotes are saying you will find out!!

It's the GAPS that don't exist!

The point is that the GAPS mean that the species that are supposed to have evolved into one another could all have been alive at the same time - nothing more.

I am well aware of punk-eek. For a simple explanation check out: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml

You stated that transitionary fossils don't exist and provided a quote mine in support. I pointed out that you took these scientists out of context as they debated punctuated equilibrium. I pointed out that the proponents who you quoted directly refuted what you had to say. Do you deny this?

 

[evo]

BTW what would a species half-way between 2 other species look like?

Well precisely.

What would it look like--it would look like a man,a platypus,a bird, a fish. Creationists don't seem to grasp how long 3 billion years is.

As I mentioned earlier in this thread man has evolved in just a few hundred years,we Europeans are on average taller as a species.Just go and visit Captain Cooks cottage,it's like a dolls house.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

As I mentioned earlier in this thread man has evolved in just a few hundred years,we Europeans are on average taller as a species.Just go and visit Captain Cooks cottage,it's like a dolls house.

This tallness that you note, do you think that this is a function of evolution or better nutrition? Is it a genetic change, or is it environmental?

I am not disputing that man is evolving. There was some lovely work published this year on natural selection in humans over the last 10,000 years (ie since the rise of civilisation, agriculture, etc.).

 

[evo]

This tallness that you note, do you think that this is a function of evolution or better nutrition? Is it a genetic change, or is it environmental?

I don't see why it can't be both.

The taller, stronger man would be more appealling to the female so he can work the farm etc.The genepool alters gradually.

Going forward brains could well be the more attractive attribute in a man(for earning capacity etc) and man may not get taller but get smarter.

Hopefully creationists can slowly be bred out of our species. ;D

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I don't see why it can't be both.

The taller, stronger man would be more appealling to the female so he can work the farm etc.The genepool alters gradually.

Going forward brains could well be the more attractive attribute in a man(for earning capacity etc) and man may not get taller but get smarter.

Hopefully creationists can slowly be bred out of our species. ;D

It can be both, no question.

 

[Djevv]

I am well aware of punk-eek. For a simple explanation check out: http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/evo101/VIIA1bPunctuated.shtml

You stated that transitionary fossils don't exist and provided a quote mine in support. I pointed out that you took these scientists out of context as they debated punctuated equilibrium. I pointed out that the proponents who you quoted directly refuted what you had to say. Do you deny this?

I understand the punctuated evolution idea. The link was no different to what I understood.

I asked you why the theory was proposed - and the quotes tell you!

Hint: It's those goldarned GAPS

 

[Djevv]

Lol at increasing height in males being an evolutionary change! :rofl

 

[evo]

Lol at increasing height in males being an evolutionary change! :rofl

Yeah,because the REAL story is that men used to live to 700 years and grow to nine feet tall :-X

 

[jayfox]

I read a book last night too that discussed magical things. Yet I recognise it for what it was...a work of fiction.

Obviously you aren't referring to the scientific term 'theory' here. Perhaps you should use the word 'story' or 'fable' or 'myth'.

PT, I reckon quotes like this from you downgrade your credibility, at least they certainly do with me. Why do you need to resort to sarcasm and schoolyard bully tactics to make your point? Do you think that you are a more highly evolved, intelligent or superior person to me? Because that is certainly the impression that I get from reading your posts. I do not believe in the evolutionists theory on how the Earth and everything in it was created just as you do not believe in an Omnipotent God. You sight evidences that I believe are corruptable and open for interpretation and I sight a personal relationship with the God of the Bible. It amazes me how readily you accept scientific findings and yet are happy to completely reject the authenticity of the Bible but neither of us can completely understand the position of the other. But for you to simply pass off my relationship with God as fictitious or something of fables or myths is quite arrogant and offensive IMO. Let's see if you can stick to this debate without resorting to those cheap shots.

 

[Six Pack]

cite

 

[Six Pack]

Many christians don't believe a lot of the old testament stuff to be literal. They tend to believe in the symbolism of the stories. I find this position to be a whole lot more rational.

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

PT, I reckon quotes like this from you downgrade your credibility, at least they certainly do with me. Why do you need to resort to sarcasm and schoolyard bully tactics to make your point? Do you think that you are a more highly evolved, intelligent or superior person to me? Because that is certainly the impression that I get from reading your posts. I do not believe in the evolutionists theory on how the Earth and everything in it was created just as you do not believe in an Omnipotent God. You sight evidences that I believe are corruptable and open for interpretation and I sight a personal relationship with the God of the Bible. It amazes me how readily you accept scientific findings and yet are happy to completely reject the authenticity of the Bible but neither of us can completely understand the position of the other. But for you to simply pass off my relationship with God as fictitious or something of fables or myths is quite arrogant and offensive IMO. Let's see if you can stick to this debate without resorting to those cheap shots.

You can't provide a credible retort to my arguments so you state that I am resorting to bullying tactics? Where? If the points I make are not valid I would like you to point them out, specifically.

The difference between the 'evolutionist' position and the 'ominipotent god' position is tangible evidence. If you want everyone to believe your POV in spite of the evidence then good luck to you. To equate the two positions as equally supported by observation of the world around us is ludicrous. Why do you take my view of theism as an archaic, outdated belief system as an insult? Why can't we question each other's beliefs on a thread dedicated to such a pursuit without being offended by people who don't share our view. Why don't you stick to the arguments and stop getting so worked up over someone questioning your theist beliefs! I don't just say 'you're wrong na na na". I explain where I see flaws in your position and instead of refuting those arguments you say "don't resort to denigrating my beliefs". Either we are discussing theism on this thread or we aren't.

Do you know why I accept scientific findings? Because I can verify their existence! Can you tell me how the mass of evidence in support of evolutionary theory, when looked at objectively, can be termed as open to interpretation or corruptible (???).

 

[Panthera tigris FC]

I understand the punctuated evolution idea. The link was no different to what I understood.

I asked you why the theory was proposed - and the quotes tell you!

Hint: It's those goldarned GAPS

The theory was postulated to explained the apparent bursts of speciation in the fossil record. It doesn't replace gradualism as an explanation, nor does it detract from natural selection, genetic drift etc. etc. as driving forces in evolution.

This is a great example of the scientific process in action. The fossil record did not exactly fit what the gradualist model proposed and thus punctuated equilibrium was postulated to explain these patterns. Now the debate centres on the relative importance of these forces, punk-eek and gradualism to explain the diversity of life on this planet.

Do you have a better explanation? Creationism certainly doesn't fit the pattern.

 

[jayfox]

Mid-evolution between species? Read evo's last post....every species is a transitionary species, so to speak. I will state it again...species don't evolve into other species....a subpopulation of a species may evolve into a distinct species that co-habitats the earth at the same time...over time they drift apart genetically, morpholoically, physiologically etc. That is why species that share a common ancestor more recently are more similar genetically, morphologically, physiologically etc. There are many examples that prove that evolution has occurred from every field of biology (not just the fossil record). Where is the damning evidence that refutes the accumulated evidence of evolution that is the cornerstone of modern biology?

You say "species don't evolve into other species" but we ALL started from the same source according to evolution, bacteria, so for us to have evolved into thousands of different creatures then some species would have had to have evolved into other species wouldn't it?

BTW what would a species half-way between 2 other species look like?

You tell me, it's your theory. I guess that something that is halfway between two creatures and yet maintains very real, distinct and undebatable elements of both.

I read a book last night too that discussed magical things. Yet I recognise it for what it was...a work of fiction. How can you claim the bible is evidence for the existence of a 9 foot man? Or for 900 year old human beings?

The world comes up with very unusual creatures and unusual exceptions within it's creatures. If the bible spoke of a Philistine who had 4 arms and legs I reckon that would have got as much ridicule from you as a 9ft man and yet we have all seen the story of that poor girl in India. My point is that Goliath was clearly an exception, the Bible indicates this, maybe a one-off in history but that doesn't make it possible. Do you reject the possibility of someone growing to 9ft in height?
The Bible has many clear stories, places and information that are supported by other archaeological findings. I think that there is ample evidence to believe in the authenticity of the Bible, particularly when it is inconjunction with a personal relationship with God. I also understand how a non-Christian cannot accept this as they do not understand what it is like to have a relationship with Him and, on the outside of this relationship, the Bible has many unusual stories in it which, without an understanding of God, are hard to come to terms with. I would encourage you to keep searching for Him though as it is the entire reason that we are on this Earth.

The 'abnormal' humans that you refer to have characteristic features that can be recognised in a skeleton. Read up on the so-called Hobbit fossil and the ongoing debate as to whether this represent a new hominid species or whether it represents a modern human with a developmental disorder. The palaeontologists involved in these debates are not idiots, nor are they unaware of the possibilities that you raise. That is why these issues are openly debated in the literature. If your argument is logically solid, then you are welcome to publish it. That is the beauty of science.

I realise that they are not idiots and it seems from what you have written that this is clearly a debate that is ongoing. If that is the case then my queries are valid but I am obviously nowhere near enough of an expert to publish a paper on the issue.

They have evolved for the last 5 million years. Humans have evolved for the 5 million years, not into our present form, but through a number of species (now extinct). Are you asking how much they have changed? In what way? Morphologically? Genetically (humans and chimps differ by ~2% of their DNA sequence and share the same chromosome order with the exception of a single fusion event)? Physiologically?

I'd love to know what differences there are in them now compared to 5 million years ago, in any or all of the ways you have brought up?

 

[jayfox]

Double post, sorry.

 

[Tiger74]

I have a creationist answer for you on fossils. Its as simple as God is a lasy sod!

He was busy running around creating the birds and the bees, and the fishes and the spider monkeys, when he decided a brew would help his work. Unfortunately while the beer was damn good (He made it after all!), it also slowed him down. When the sun started setting, he realized he had stuffed up, so he started speeding up. In doing so, he started mixing up the bits, which is why we have freakavoid animals like Platypuses, Giraffes, and Joffa.

Unfortunately though, he left his mad run way too late, and just as the sun was about to set, he still had a tonne of animal bits lying around. Not wanting to work anymore, God decided sight unseen was the order of the day and buried his unfinished work.

Unfortunately he hadn't planned on us being a bunch of nosey bastards who would dig up his leftovers.

 

[Six Pack]

T, this makes sense as he really only had a week in which to finish the job.