Creation vs. Evolution

[MikeFerrara]

the other way around

it's evolution theory extrapolated from observed data. that's how the theory of evolution came about. science was looking for a mechanism that would explain what they were observing. evolution was that mechanism. so far, it has not been seriously challenged.

you are certainly welcome to posit a theory that also explains the observable data

I don't think so. What I see so far is that the idea of adaptaion or selection has been extended to the assumption that it's possible for one kind to evolve into another kind.

We know, to some degree, that selection can bring about changes. For example, we can selectively breed dogs to end up with a different "breed" of dog but I have not heard of anyone selectively breeding dogs and ending up with a cat.

It would really go a long way in supporting the overall theory of the evolution of life if they could start out breeding fish and end up with a dog or a bird.

Of course that doesn't take mutation into account but I haven't yet seen any proof that mutation can account for such changes. It seems like a stretch to consider it likely before establishing that it's even possible.

 

[The Chairman]

One of the best supports for the theory of evolution comes from the human embryo...

http://embryo.soad.umich.edu/carnStages/carnStages.html

I wonder why we have a tail? Where did it go? It sure looks like an evolutional artifact.

Also, have you EVER wondered why males have nipples? God's little joke, or an evolutional artifact?

Mike,

Getting a cat from a dog goes way against nature. God designed evolution in such a way to stop that from happening. However, both the Dog and the Cat have a common ancestor, and so do we.

 

[H2Andy]

I don't think so. What I see so far is that the idea of adaptaion or selection has been extended to the assumption that it's possible for one kind to evolve into another kind.

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.

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.

 

[Warthaug]

I've been trying to do some reading on evolution. Maybe I haven't found the best sources so If anyone has any suggestions I'd be happy to take a look.

I'm probably a little late replying here, but incase someone hasn't already addressed this:

A good place to start is actually "The Origin of Species" by Darwin. Granted, it is a long and fairly dry book, but it'll give you a really good understanding of the basis of evolutionary theory. Darwin wrote several other books (Descent of Man, Selection in Relation to Sex), all of which are also important to evolutionary theory.

Another good book, which covers a lot of the theory, is "Darwinism And Its Discontents" by Michael Ruse. Also a little dry, but it is a great overview of modern evolutionary theory, and it delves into a lot of the controversies - from the social controversies (creationism, ID) to the scientific controversies (punctuated equilibrium).

Jared Diamond wrote an excellent overview of the evidence suggesting man and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, called "Third Chimpanzee". A great overview of what modern science thinks about this.

Carl Sagan (now deceased) wrote several excellent books which contain great essays about evolution. I’d recommend “Cosmos” and “Billions and Billions”. Although evolution only makes up a small amount of these books material, the books themselves are very interesting, and give the reader a good since of how the entirety of the scientific community views our universe.

In terms of on-line material, the talk.origins archive is a great source, with an extensive series of articles about all aspects of evolution, abiogenesis, creationism, ID, and other scientific things (radiodating, age of universe, etc). One of the nicer features of this archive is that it is written for the "average joe", so the material tends to be pretty easy to understand. You can find it at: http://www.talkorigins.org/

I've not listed some of the leading evolutionary authors such as Dawkins and Gould. Although you can learn a lot of evolution from their books, you have to be careful in how you interpret some of what they say - Gould has (well, had, he's dead now) a tendency to promote some theories which were not mainstream. Dawkins tends to stick to the more main-stream material, but often uses this as a platform to jump into raving athiest type material. His most recent books don't even bother with the evolutionary stuff, and jump straight into the atheism. "The Silent Gene" is great, but a lot of what he's written lately is lacking.

Bryan

 

[H2Andy]

we don't find fossils of mammals there. Does that mean there were NONE there?

yes, that's exactly what it means.

there wasn't even anything with a backbone yet, and you need a backbone before you can become a mammal.

in other words, it's impossible for there to have been mammals, since there was nothing with a backbone around.

 

[H2Andy]

Jared Diamond wrote an excellent overview of the evidence suggesting man and chimpanzees share a common ancestor, called "Third Chimpanzee". A great overview of what modern science thinks about this.

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)

 

[H2Andy]

Also, have you EVER wondered why males have nipples? God's little joke, or an evolutional artifact?

this is pretty neat, actually, glad you brought it up

upon conception, all human embryos have an XX chromosome pairing. that is, they initially develop as females (that is to say, all human embryos start out as females)

by the time the "Y" chromosome "displaces" one of the X chromosomes (meaning the embryo will now develop as a male), the nipples have already been developed and formed.

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

 

[Thalassamania]

I've not listed some of the leading evolutionary authors such as Dawkins and Gould. Although you can learn a lot of evolution from their books, you have to be careful in how you interpret some of what they say - Gould has (well, had, he's dead now) a tendency to promote some theories which were not mainstream. Dawkins tends to stick to the more main-stream material, but often uses this as a platform to jump into raving athiest type material. His most recent books don't even bother with the evolutionary stuff, and jump straight into the atheism. "The Silent Gene" is great, but a lot of what he's written lately is lacking.

Bryan

Notably missing from your excellent list is E.O.Wilson, especially his recent work: The Creation: An Appeal to Save Life on Earth

Some alternative views on Dawkins' most recent (and strongly atheist work) The God Delusion:

"The world needs . . . passionate rationalists . . . Richard Dawkins so stands out through the cutting intelligence of The God Delusion." --James D. Watson, Nobel Laureate, co-discoverer of DNA, author of The Double Helix

"At last, one of the best nonfiction writers alive today has assembled his thoughts on religion into a characteristically elegant book." --Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor, Harvard University, author of The Language Instinct, How the Mind Works, and The Blank Slate

"A resounding trumpet blast for truth . . . It feels like coming up for air." --Matt Ridley, author of Genome and Francis Crick

"Dawkins gives human sympathies and emotions their proper value, which...lends his criticisms of religion such force." --Philip Pullman, author of His Dark Materials trilogy

"This is a brave and important book." --Desmond Morris, author of The Naked Ape, The Human Animal, etc.

"Richard Dawkins is the leading soothsayer of our time. . . . The God Delusion continues his thought-provoking tradition." --J. Craig Venter, decoder of the human genome

"The God Delusion is smart, compassionate, and true . . . If this book doesn't change the world, we're all screwed." --Penn & Teller

 

[H2Andy]

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

 

[Warthaug]

My current questions at this point might deal with how we identify a transitional organism.

As others have pointed out, this is a difficult question. It also doens't help that technically, all species are a "transitional form" between their anscestors and whatever species ends up following them. So it often comes down to your point of view.

For example, archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil between dinosaurs and birds, but there is a whole range of fossils between dinosaurs between "regular" dino's and archaeopteryx, so which ones are "transitional" and which ones are "species".

Here's a link which goes over the "birdification" of dinosaurs. As you can see numerous species which represent "midpoints" in terms of bone structure and feather structure exist. But which ones you would consider transitory is really a matter of opinion.

http://hometown.aol.com/darwinpage/dinobirds.htm

For example we seem to see one stage existing for a long time and many fossils found. All of a sudden, they seem to be gone and there's another "stage". In that x number of years we have time for y number of generations yet we have two "stages".

There are two explanations for this. The first (and most likely) explanation is that geological strata is highly compact - you can have literally millions of years of history compacted into a layer of rock only a few centimeters (or inches ;-) ) of material. So what appears to be an instantaneous change, could actually have taken hundreds of thousands, or even millions of years. Another thing to keep in mind is that only a miniscule percentage of organisms ever turn into fossils, so if a transitional form is short lasting there is a good chance it'll never get preserved in the fossil record.

The second possibility (although this is somewhat controversial in the scientific community) is a phenomena called "punctuated equilibrium". This is an "alternative" form of evolution. Basically, the idea of that theory is that during times of stability species sit around and build up genetic diversity. But when something stresses that species you get a rapid period where the poorly adapted members die, and the small number with good adaptations survive. This results in a quick evolutionary "jump", which would create the two "phases" you talk about.

To make matters worse, it seems that sometimes the evidence is something like a single tooth or a piece of a skull or whatever. Fossils are hard to make but if we have such solid fossil evidence of two, why none in between?

That may be true in some cases, but in many cases (dino -> bird transition, formation of humans, formation of horses, formation of whales) we have a much more complete record, with full (or nearly full) fossils at most of the transition points.

In some cases those stages might exist at the same time according to the interpretation of the fossil record. In that case the only apparent explanaition is that they have a common ancestor but in those cases, the fossil record seems even thinner...

But these days common ancestry is linked by more then fossil evidence. For example, for most living species we have two distinct genetic lines of evidence showing common ancestry (mtDNA and nuclear DNA). DNA has even been found within fossils and amber (yes, just like Jurassic Park, but we won't be making dino's any time soon), and is being used to study the evolution of some genes.

Bryan