Creation vs. Evolution

[Thalassamania]

not exactly calculated to introduce Christians to evolutionary concepts, now, is it?

Dawkins, no. Wilson, yes.

 

[H2Andy]

hehehe... sorry, i meant Dawkins

 

[chrisch]

...both males and females have nipples, even though males have absolutely no use for them (well, you can get them pierced, i guess...)

There's a group of err.. "gentlemen" in Thailand might disagree

Chris

 

[H2Andy]

somehow, i have a strong suspicion i don't want to know ...

 

[Warthaug]

i second that: The Third Chimpanzee

and also read A Brief History of Nearly Everything, it's a wonderful primer on where scientific thought is today and how it got here.

(Mike, this is not the first time these books are recommended to you)

Ditto on the "Brief History of Nearly Everything". Great book, and funny too.

Bryan

 

[The Chairman]

While I have no issues with most of the books presented here, Dawkins is the exception. Reading Dawkins is like reading a book by the KKK on Black intelligence. The man is clearly bigoted against all things Christian and openly admits it.

I am against religion because it teaches us to be satisfied with not understanding the world

. He gives atheism a bad name.

 

[Thalassamania]

Immunological evidence and gene sequencing puts the nail in the creationist coffin.

We first looked at fossils and embryology, and from that created evolutionary family trees. We began to understand on a gross anatomical level evolution as a process or adaptation and change.

Then along came DNA and we began to understand, on a molecular level, the actual mechanism of evolution.

Now, by first using immunological distance analysis and now actual gene sequencing, we have multiple independent confirmations (and sometimes minor fine tuning) of what had been first determined by the gross anatomical studies of fossil bones.

Given the almost perfect point to point confirmation or what was gleaned from the fossil record, discussion of the paucity of “missing links” or the imperfection of the fossil record strikes me as rather a waste of time and effort.

 

[MikeFerrara]

you are ignoring the overwhelming evidence of the fossil record

you are also ignoring the very clear "intermediate stages" of human evolution. you say that there are no intermediate fossils, and yet you appear to know little, if anything, about Ardipithecus ramidus, Australopithecus afarensis, Paranthropus robustus, Paranthropus boisei, Australopithecus africanus, Homo habilis, Homo erectus, Homo neanderthalis, and finallay, Homo sapiens.

I'm not ignoring anything. Reading about those guys is exactly where some of my questions came from.

the record is absolutely clear that humans did not "spring" into action fully formed, but are the result of an evolutionary process that took us from a chimp-like creature to what we are today.



now, if you could find a fully-modern human fossil along with the Ardipithecus, then you would debunk evolution.

good luck.

Absolutely is a really big word. Obviously, at this point, I don't see where it's all that clear at all. I see a lot of questions that I haven't yet seen answers for. Even if, as you say, man has changed over time (ignoring for the time being that some of these finds only consisted of small fragments), in order to fully establish the theory I think we need a direct connection to a clearly non-man mammal...to a non-primate-mammal...to a non-mammal and so on. I haven't see that yet. The arguement that I think I'm reading from you is that they weren't here and then they were, so there's noplace else they could have come. Isn't that the same arguement that was used for spontanious generation before Pasteur disproved it?

I don't have the data or knowledge of existing data to directly refute anything so I'm not trying to "debunk" anything. I'm reading, asking questions and stating simple observations of what I read/don't read. I'm attempting to discuss the observed data, though, admittedly and necessarily, from a laymens perspective.

 

[MikeFerrara]

Immunological evidence and gene sequencing puts the nail in the creationist coffin.

We first looked at fossils and embryology, and from that created evolutionary family trees. We began to understand on a gross anatomical level evolution as a process or adaptation and change.

Then along came DNA and we began to understand, on a molecular level, the actual mechanism of evolution.

Now, by first using immunological distance analysis and now actual gene sequencing, we have multiple independent confirmations (and sometimes minor fine tuning) of what had been first determined by the gross anatomical studies of fossil bones.

Given the almost perfect point to point confirmation or what was gleaned from the fossil record, discussion of the paucity of “missing links” or the imperfection of the fossil record strikes me as rather a waste of time and effort.

What do you make of this article that Andy linked a couple of pages back? http://cas.bellarmine.edu/tietjen/Evolution/Fossil%20Record/quality_of_the_fossil_record_thr.htm

 

[Uncle Pug]

It is especially unsatisfying to attempt a discussion of the metaphysical with a monkey.

They are most likely to just fling feces at you, grin and hoot wildly.