Creationism vs. Evolution

[loser]

Taking in consideration that the world is 6,000 years old and that there was a deluge which killed everybody exept Noah and a core of every species (let suppose we can put 2 representant of a few million species in a boat), how did we succeed to breed enough to get 50,000,000 humans 1000 Before Jezz? And how did animals? Archeological and even historic facts didn't mention that peoples had 120 kids each. What about inbreeding? It a little dirty to think about it, but Adam and Eve child copulating with each other until everybody dies and Noah's child doing the same perhaps 2,000 years later wouldn't give any surviving feotus after four or five genrerations...nor very bright ones after 2 or 3. We could cite dinosaurs as a valuable interrogation too: what does a 30 feets skeleton doing under 50 feets of mud, without any relating of them in the Bible? Questions, questions...just questions for you creationists!

Not very well thought out questions, however. My four year old grandson asks tougher questions than those.

I'll ignore your numbers because they are too confused. Starting after the flood, the world was populated by Noah and his wife and his three daughters and their three husbands...a total of eight beings or four couples.

The inbreeding that you refer to is not as extreme as you are making it and, as the population increased, marriage partners became less related.

As far as 'dinosaurs' or "30 feets skeleton", they are indeed accounted for in the Bible.

Nothing you said poses a problem for the reality of life as we know it (and as recorded in the Bible).

Creationists don't believe in science silly.

Of course we do. In fact, it's what we base our understanding on.

As for stupid people, how do you know Adam and Eve weren't uber Mensas and we're all retards?

Well, that's a lot closer to the truth than what is taught in schools.

It's not like a hummingbird woke up one morning and said, "Hey, what's that on my tongue?"

No, it's more like it was there from the very beginning when it was created.

What? Did man create an automobile without a gas tank and say, "I'll just let a gas tank evolve onto the car"?

Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure, a light-sensitive pigmented spot on the skin, could have gone through changes and complexities to form the human eye, with its many parts and astounding abilities.

Give 'em an e for effort.

Not 'agruments', actually. What you really have is a serious of incredulous statements that seem to be based on extreme ignorance.

Or responded to by the extremest ignorance known to man.

Of course, since the concept of god is a supernatural idea, and since science is the pursuit of methodological naturalism, the concept of god is not scientific. It is a matter of simple definition.

I'll pretend that you are trying to be intelligent here and grace you with a reply. If God is supernatural then mankind is supernatural. However, both are very natural and real and can be explored scientifically. Instead of pathetic protests, start using some science in your exploration of the Creator and His creation.

The problem I see with the design concept is that "design" is a purely human perception. What may look well designed to one person may look chaotic to another. The universe shows no consistent design. Other than the fact that thanks to the effects of gravity the predominant shape of most things in the universe is round, I don't see anything that would suggest a consistency of design. Where's the object standard for universal design? Why should we expect there to be one?

You're not looking very well, then. Design is NOT a human perception. It is a human observance of nature. Good grief! Everything man has come up with, from airplanes to rain coats, has been from observing the various designs of nature. Sure, you may think that the frog was poorly designed, that if he had wings he wouldn't bump his butt every time he hops. No matter. Design ideas come from nature.

As far as consistency of design, it is infinite variance that is consistent. Infiniteness seems to be the marker for all creation...space, time, color, fingerprints, snow flakes, Baskin-Robbins...the list is...endless.

If there's evidence of design that can be scientifically examined

What does that mean? Evidence of design is everywhere. Scientifically examining it is what we do on a daily basis...it's what science is all about.

D and creation pushers forget to notice that the design is natural, called natural selection. The design is still taking place... its called evolution. Did you or did you not watch the "Nova special on ID on trial" Zee? How do you feel about the "flagellan motor argument"? Irreducible complexity is a joke.

The joke is the inane attempts by the ungodly to rewrite science in order to mollify their discomfort at the realization of the Creator.

There's your joke...ha ha.

The constant thread that I see running among all of the non-believing (in God) evolutionists is their attempt to dismiss God as being supernatural. The implication is that He isn't 'real' so science can't address Him.

Nothing could be farther from the truth.

If God made His presence (existence) known tomorrow, would your thinking change?

[loser]

Okay, I've almost caught up and I would like to apologize for some "personal attacks" as one person called me out on. I really don't like to do it but it's hard for me not to respond tit for tat. If you look carefully, you will see that my attacks are almost always precipitated by prior attacks by the receivers of my attacks (though not necessarily aimed at me). So, if you're going to fuss at me, please be fair and fuss at the other guy too...even if he is part of your legion.

Anyway, let's do stop ALL of the personal attacks...it's quite unbecoming and makes us look more like our ancient ancestors, the baboons.

[loser]

double post

[loser]

I dont beleive in the creation theory. Evolution is a more probable cause, as there is evidence of evolution happening all around us. There is no clear evidence to back up creationism and I dont really beleive in God so yeah. Evolution for me.

Well, you've actually exposed the real reason why people choose evolution over creation...they don't believe in God (and that's perfectly alright, by the way)! They try to convince us (but really themselves) that there is evidence for evolution and not for creation. The truth is, however, is that there is ample evidence for creation. There is plenty of evidence for what is offered as evolution (adaptation, etc.) but not for the grand theory (macro evolution or common descent).

You see, the very dynamics of life is change. Life simply doesn't exist without change. So, of course, change or evolution is evident everywhere you look. With this definition of evolution, creationism can exist right alongside it.

It's a clumsy attempt to get religion, specifically Christianity, into science classrooms to counter actual science.

What "actual science" is it trying to counter?

[Kite]

Quote by: loser What "actual science" is it trying to counter?

Real science. Not these supposedly 'logic-based deductions' you keep giving us, but facts, numbers, statistics, experiments, hypothesis, observations, recordings. Actual DATA. If you were to come forward with some actual data, outlined in a CLEAR format with none of the personal stuff that you attach to it, then maybe you have something. Until that is seen, you're simply rattling off assertions based on pseudo-science.

[loser]

Since this thread is supposed to be about creationism vs. evolution, I have a question; why are Christians offended by the thought that we descended from an early form of primate but OK with the Biblical implication that we were created from dirt?

I would guess for the same reason that a baker would be offended if you suggested her cake was created from a cake mix and not from scratch. It's not the ingredients that offend but the method of preparation. You see, those early forms of primate were fashioned from the same 'dirt' (elements and compounds) but with a different recipe. The science of creation is exactly the same as that of evolution, only the methodology is different (actually, only the point of origin).

Evolution starts with abiogenesis and progresses from simple single cell life to the diversity that exists today. Creationism starts with God creating many different kinds of life and those life forms 'evolving' into the diversity that exists today. Both schools examine nature and because of inherent bias arrive at different conclusions, each accusing the other of faulty exegesis.

The truth of the matter is that the argument is centered around one central point: the existence or non-existence of God. The only reason that this is such a heated debate is because of the horrendous record (actions) of religion throughout the ages.

the designer would have to be something supernatural, because nothing natural, as far as we can assume, no matter how advanced, can create something out of nothing.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the sticking point of the argument. How did the universe and its contents come about? There are two school of thoughts: it has always existed and something appeared from nothing.

The Christian thought is based on the first words of the Bible: "In the beginning God...". This suggests the first school of thought; i.e., God has always existed. Since the origin of the universe is unknown, then God becomes the marker for this unknown beginning. There's nothing supernatural about that except for the incredible improbability of life. Life shouldn't exist but it does.

And why would god create bones in the Earth made to look really really old unless he was trying to decieve us? isn't deception the devil's work?

What makes those bones "look really really old"? Because they have turned to stone? How long does that take? Have you actually measured it or are you just accepting what you have been taught? Where does the deception really lie? Think about it.

dont understand the problem with evolution, perhaps the designer designed evolution as a way for his creations to improve, the 2 dont contradict each other. Its just that one doesn't have any proof and shouldn't be taught in schools until it gets proof.

That's true except for the fact that evolution is trying to force the conclusion of common descent. Of course, without a Creator, it simply has no choice. If evolutionary theory would concede that different life forms had different beginnings (created with inherent differences), it would concede the existence of God. Until God becomes a known entity, this can't happen.

[Jack]

The truth of the matter is that the argument is centered around one central point: the existence or non-existence of God. The only reason that this is such a heated debate is because of the horrendous record (actions) of religion throughout the ages.

I agree with the first sentence but dispute the second. Historical actions of religion is only a tangent to the central issue; there is no credible evidence that supports the notion that gods exist. Without the existence of gods, the actions of believers are simply acts of inhumanity, as their acts of mercy and kindness are acts of humanity.

How did the universe and its contents come about? There are two school of thoughts: it has always existed and something appeared from nothing.

There are many schools of thought. Creationists only have one, but science has many. Since science isn't concerned with divining absolute truth, it can entertain many ideas while examining the evidence to see what it suggests is the most likely answer.

The science of creation is exactly the same as that of evolution, only the methodology is different (actually, only the point of origin).

There is no "science of creation" unless the word "science" is generalized into meaninglessness. Creationism has started with a conclusion (god did it) and is trying disparately to find evidence it can claim supports its contention. Science simply examines the evidence in nature and attempts to draw conclusions (best answers that fit all the evidence, not absolute truths) from where the evidence leads. The supernatural leaves no evidence that can be objectively examined, therefore it's disqualified from scientific inquiry.

The Christian thought is based on the first words of the Bible: "In the beginning God...". This suggests the first school of thought; i.e., God has always existed. Since the origin of the universe is unknown, then God becomes the marker for this unknown beginning.

This is a perfect example of "god of gaps" reasoning. The existence of a supernatural god is presumed without reason or evidence; the existence of god is presumed to be an a priori assumption before any evidence is examined; any event lacking evidence is not allowed to be a blank spot in our knowledge, nor is speculation based on other knowledge accepted; if we can't offer a bullet-proof, iron-clad absolute answer to every question, then the gap in our knowledge is plugged up with "god did it".

A blog I happened across today addresses this in detail:

Nature does not fear empty space. So why should we fear empty space in our knowledge? I think that mental fear of vacuum is as unjustified as fear of vacuum is unreal in the physical world. Last week I have shown why I see gaps in knowledge not as a weakness but a strength of science. In contrast, religious people seem to suffer from a mental fear of vacuum. That is, all gaps in knowledge must be filled at any price. Horror of vacuum, horror vacui in Latin, has first been postulated by the ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle. He thought that nature had a horror of empty space. Empty space thus would try to suck matter in. This theory has been held for more than a millennium until Torricelli detected air pressure in the seventeenth century. Today we know that most part of the Universe is empty space. Nature, had it feelings, would be quite happy with it. Lino Sanchez, author of the freethought site christianism.com, has compiled a vast collection of quotes to support this view. He concludes: "All the Gods of Homo sapiens (erectus, et al.?), including the famous Gods of the Greeks, the reported 1200 deities of the Romans, the Gods and God of the Jews and Christians, Jesus Christ, other myths, folklore (Bibles, etc.), have been and are, 'stuffing' for mental horror vacui." Of course, not only religion but also certain schools of thought in philosophy and science seem to be powered by mental horror vacui. Qualia is a good example of a concept that serves no other purpose than filling a vaccum in the understanding of the world. The monads of Leibniz, three hundred years ago, are another example of philosophical horror vacui. Isn't science with its eagerness to explain everything not just another example of mental horror vacui? Is it different from religion in this respect? I think it is different. Whereas religions must fill the mental vacuum at any price, using gods and other stuffing material, science just tries to construct useful theories that grow into the empty space, but never filling it completely. There is always enough empty space left for more and better theories. Just imagine that the dream of total knowledge would have come true: All would be perfectly known, there would be not the least trace of empty mental space. This would also mean the heat death of science. No need to learn new things. Pure horror, if you ask me. I think that we should be happy with all the mental gaps that offer us opportunities to fill them with new knowledge.

http://freethinkingjoy.blogspot.com/...ror-vacui.html

[loser]

Its basic physics that creationism should be having a problem is, but they're still pissed they came from monkeys

No, I think they're mad because ignorant people claim that we came from monkeys without an iota of evidence (though they claim much evidence to the contrary) merely because they don't want to believe in God (but do, no matter how hard they struggle against it).

My point is that evolutionists (scientists devoted to a better physical understanding of the origin, nature, and development of live) in general are more responsive to evidence that runs contrary to their theories than do creationists who have a base of faith rather than education and scientific observation for their conclusions.

I say that your observation is completely false and only believe that because of your bias. I see just the opposite...is it possible that I am biased, as well?

That some creationists cannot get beyond that 'they came from monkeys' to see a possible flaw in their own theory shows the level of ignorance that must be overcome before a scientific conversation can even begin with 'devout' creationists

Ignorance is where you find it. Evolutionary biologists can't get beyond God to see the absolute flaw in their own theory..

Scientists (I'm not sure why you specified 'evolutionists') virtually leap at evidence that is contrary to accepted theories. That's how science works and how scientists get their name out there.

Indeed...Piltdown man comes to mind. Uh,wait, that proves the OPPOSITE of what you said.

Sorry......NOT!

On the other hand, Creationists reach their conclusions by faith rather than observation. If their faith cannot be reconciled with reality, creationists reject reality.

Really? It seems to me, from the confessions of many 'once religious' posters, that they have rejected their faith and not their perceived reality. Truth is a lot less assailable...you know that, right?

Yep. I'm sure. I've been debating creationists for over 20 years...

This should explain your debating skills...but does it?

...and have been an evolutionary biologist, studying and teaching it, for over 30.

Now that's a scary thought. I hope you're still teaching in "The Great Wide Open". I mean, after all, what harm could a bunch of cowboys do up on "Brokeback Mountain"?

I'm just Adam's ribbing you with sarcastic humor. The reason?

You never took debate, did you?

How sad that you seem to want to learn and yet are unable to accept correction from someone who knows more about the topic than you.

That's exactly my point. You should listen to me...I know everything that needs to be known. Accept correction like a hominid...or, at least, a closely related species!

I wasn't trying to sound smarter.

Don't worry...you don't.

Holy Jesus!

See? Even evolutionary biologists aren't totally clueless!

In the spirit of reconciliation and in an effort to help you understand, here is a summary of Darwin's thoughts about natural selection.

Why would you post the thoughts of Darwin? His only degree was in THEOLOGY and he failed that miserably. Darwin wasn't very bright and he was an abysmal failure in school. His ideas weren't original, he merely tried to advance the ideas of his grandfather. As a theologian who turned from his faith (and with a father and a grandfather who were atheists), he had motive to construct a theory which rejected the reality of God. He had motive (desire) but he didn't have the ability to do proper study and research. Of course, that didn't stop him from deceiving millions of people who welcomed his theory since they rejected God, as well. It isn't the science of Darwinism that has captivated the masses, it is the philosophy/religion of it.

No, he didn't. Have you actually read anything by Darwin?

Once again, a horrible source. If you have read anything by Darwin and accepted his fallacious reasoning, then you are not qualified to teach evolutionary biology. Brainwashed (programmed) people do not make good teachers. They are just more bricks in the wall...and we don't need no (sic) source control.

We have found fossils of intermediate (i.e., transitional) species.

No, 'we' haven't. You're making fallacious connections.

Though humans have shared the planet with millions of other creatures for thousands of years, we know surprisingly little about our neighbors — we don’t even know exactly how many flora and fauna call Earth home. The National Science Foundation’s “Tree of Life” project estimates that there could be anywhere from 5 million to 100 million species on the planet, but science has only identified about 2 million. “We’ve only touched the surface of understanding animal life,” said entomologist Brian Fisher of the California Academy of Sciences. “We’ve discovered just 10 percent of all living things on this planet.”

How many species exist on Earth? - LiveScience - MSNBC.com

By the way, the two Brokeback Mountain cowboys at the top of your page are impressive.

Not to everybody, however.

'm not familiar with this creationist invention and I thought the the region just north of Australia was ocean.

You said that math wasn't one of your strong points, I would guess that geography isn't either. You probably don't know this but there are a lot of islands in the ocean. Even Australia is an island and is north of somewhere. Google earth could probably help you.

These are not accidents but the result of billions of years of evolution

It's billions now, is it? Wow...my watch stopped.

There is no question that everything is the result of a magical and invisible being. Why would anyone doubt it?

Uneducated, ignorant, or superstitious people believe that ALL science which they can't understand is magic. Air is invisible but most of us know that it's not magical. Magnetic attraction seems magical but it's not. Spontaneous combustion appears magical to those not understanding chemistry. What are you going to do...we live in a 'magical' universe!

One theory of gravity is that what comes up must come down, because the earth has its own gravitational pull. Another theory is that what goes up comes back down because little invisible and intangible gremlins grab on to anything that goes up and yanks it back down to earth. We can't exactly disprove the second theory, yes, but why would we even put stock in it when the first has a much more logical and sensible explanation?

Which is why "logical and sensible" people believe in God. It's hard to put stock in the little green goblin called evolution.

Ok, fair enough. Now just give us your "much more logical and sensible explanation" of the origin of life and the universe. Go read a few pages of this thread, you should get a general idea.

Better yet, just read all of my posts.

I seem to remember something about a big bang? Doppler effect? Universal Background Radiation?

A big bang implies an explosion. What exploded and where did it come from?

The Doppler effect is the observed change in the frequency of a wave due to motion. How does that explain the origin of what caused those waves?

Universal Background Radiation? How does that explain the origin of matter?

[rez]

Quote by: loser Evolution starts with abiogenesis and progresses from simple single cell life to the diversity that exists today. Creationism starts with God creating many different kinds of life and those life forms 'evolving' into the diversity that exists today. Both schools examine nature and because of inherent bias arrive at different conclusions, each accusing the other of faulty exegesis.

Wrong. Like you said "both schools examine nature". However, upon closer inspection humans can see that life is built upon previous life. Each living organisms share genes with each other. Each living organism has the same basic blueprint.

The difference between explanations is that the god explanation was thought up during a time when man didn't know much about nature.

The truth of the matter is that the argument is centered around one central point: the existence or non-existence of God. The only reason that this is such a heated debate is because of the horrendous record (actions) of religion throughout the ages.

Actually humans don't care if god exists or not. People are not as superstitious and ignorant as they were thousands of years ago. We don't care if god exists, because we are more concerned with how things work, rather then why. Answering the why question doesn't lead anybody anywhere.

As I mentioned earlier, this is the sticking point of the argument. How did the universe and its contents come about? There are two school of thoughts: it has always existed and something appeared from nothing.

That is rather ignorant considering the vast amount of possibilities we have on the table currently. Are you incapable of coming up with other possibilities? Why don't you actually try to think of some others right in this thread for us. Show us that you can critically think...

The Christian thought is based on the first words of the Bible: "In the beginning God...". This suggests the first school of thought; i.e., God has always existed. Since the origin of the universe is unknown, then God becomes the marker for this unknown beginning. There's nothing supernatural about that except for the incredible improbability of life. Life shouldn't exist but it does.

wow man, you sure are a deep thinker How about you try and think about it more....

What makes those bones "look really really old"?

Are you asking because you don't know? Go read a book and find out.

Because they have turned to stone?

Do you think they turned to stone?

How long does that take?

go and educate yourself. Find out. Think for yourself.

Have you actually measured it or are you just accepting what you have been taught?

What would it matter if I measured it for myself. You would just question the technology that made the measurement. So on and so forth. You are so selectivly skeptical that is worthless to debate you.

Where does the deception really lie? Think about it.

I don't know about you, but I am trying to honestly find the answers to the questions. That means I have to educate myself on all possibilities.

That's true except for the fact that evolution is trying to force the conclusion of common descent.

Force? We have millions of dumb Americans that don't understand evolution and because of that reject it. Nobody is forced to understand anything. You don't have to understand History, math, or even religion. You can do whatever you want.

Of course, without a Creator, it simply has no choice. If evolutionary theory would concede that different life forms had different beginnings (created with inherent differences), it would concede the existence of God. Until God becomes a known entity, this can't happen.

Your thinking is so disconnected and unorganized. Where did you get this reasoning from? Explain yourself.

[loser]

All I can do is to point out errors in logic and science from creationists in their silly and ineffective efforts to "prove" science wrong.

There's your mistake. Creationists want to prove science right. It's the scientists (not all, but most) that they aim to show wrong. There is a HUGE difference between science (a reality) and people calling themselves scientists (fallible, pretentious, and superstitious)...the difference between right and wrong.

Researchers have also constructed two viruses that reproduce just like the originals from which they were copied. And now, a bacterium has been constructed in the lab. The entire genomes of the above organisms were pieced together by constructing segments of RNA or DNA and then joining these segments together in the right sequence. However, the point is that a living organism was artificially constructed in the lab.

And a VERY GOOD POINT!

But, yet, somehow you fail to see that "constructed" and "pieced together" and "constructing" and "joining" all are equivalent to CREATE and not EVOLVE!

Of course we can create things (in the lab or elsewhere) because CREATION is how life works. How could it be any simpler?

Rather than postulate that invisible magic being did it all from nothing by magic, it is more reasonable to assume that both the universe and life arose by some natural means.

How totally ridiculous is that? Nature (natural means) could not exist until AFTER the universe and life existed. Computers boot themselves up but a bootstrap program is required beforehand for it to do so.

You sure believe in magic an awful lot for a biologist.

Why are there quarks, leptons, mesons, baryons, and hadrons?

Magic particles?

We may not yet know much about the processes, and although we may never answer either question completely, there is still no reason to postulate that it was done by magic by a being drawn from the mythology of ancient, bronze age, nomadic herdsmen. It only substitutes magic without any details. Maybe "Mr Magic" will tap into NASA's message: Done that. But actually, any explanation that was based on some actual observed evidence rather than on mythology would be "more logical and sensible." Actually, "Darwinists" (whatever that may mean) don't want to compare any scientific theory with any tenet based on superstition and mythology. The comparisons are caused when creationists object to science or try to represent their mythology as science. Is it more logical to assume that a magical being just created all of these creatures from nothing rather than that they evolved from other, similar species. Is it more logical and sensible to claim that they were placed there by magic and only made to look like they are volcanic? You keep talking about "magic" and "mythology"... Now you are pretending that somehow there is no creator in creationism, that somehow "creationism" means that the universe and life somehow arose without any sort of supernatural intervention by some magical being. And since such appearance of design is adequately explained by natural causes, there is no rational reason to postulate an unknown, supernatural, mythological being as the cause. Thus, there is no need to inject imaginary beings.

Magic, magic, magic...you're way too superstitious for anyone to take serious as a scientist...no, wait...you're actually the poster child for modern scientists. I stand corrected.

Why do certain life froms exist in only a certain limited geographical area, for example Darwin's finches which exist only in the Galapagos islands, some species existing only on a single island? Or the mocking birds, or the tortoises, or the flightless cormorants, or the aquatic iguanas?

It's called geographic isolation. Being weak in geography can be a detriment to an EB, can't it? Who wudda thunk it?

Please pick a horse and ride it. You can't change it up every time you realize that you have made yourself look silly.

Yes, but you can only ride a dead horse for so long. Don't you think it's about time that you find one that is still breathing?

You're kidding, right? Scientific theories (big bang, abiogenesis, and evolution) that are opposed by creationists are part of the idea of creationism?

Are you being purposely disingenuous? Creationists do not oppose any scientific fact or theory with merit. What they oppose are fallacious arguments attempting to paint God as a magical being instead of the Creator that He is. A big bang (God's firecracker) is not a problem. Abiogenesis is not a problem but is unneeded except possibly for the existence of God. Evolution is not a problem except when clueless men not worthy of being called scientists extend it to include macro evolution or common descent. If they will accept the fact that different kinds of animals were created in the beginning of life on earth and evolution is really nothing more than the dynamic change of life (which is limited to reality) and not the magic transitions imagined by superstitious men, then creationists will welcome aboard EB's on the Truth Train.

Creationism has been around since we laughed at it in my freshman biology class.

Isn't that the real problem? Freshman thinking they have all the answers, the impudent folly of youth!

[Jack]

Ah my, creationists and their fascination with transitional fossils...as if they'd recognize one if they saw one. But since they like to tell us how open-minded they are, perhaps some verifiable information will eventually sneak past their god-filter.

Evolution predicts that there should be a great many fossils of transitional forms, intermediate between ancestors and descendents. Creationists often argue that these transitional forms do not exist, and therefore, this disproves evolution. Indeed, they often quote Darwin, who was puzzled at the lack of transitional fossils, and Gould, who has said that there really are not very many transitional forms in the fossil record. Why would Darwin have thought that there are no transitional forms? Why would creationists continue to argue that there are none? Why would Gould suggest that there are not a great many, yet agree that there certainly are some? To assess these issues, it is necessary to look into the actual biological mechanisms involved. The common misconception is that adults can mutate--that individual, full-grown organisms somehow change from one form into another form. Perhaps, this idea derives from scenarios such as the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, or Spiderman, in which something happens to an individual, causing them to change into something else. A variation of this misconception is that mutations occur in DNA, and are inherited genetically, but they change everything about the organism rather than affecting just one trait. These misconceptions may have their roots in an incomplete understanding of genetics and molecular biology. According to this misconceived notion, evolution from ancestor to descendent should occur by the gradual change of all characteristics in unison. It may be that each individual changes independently, or that every individual in a population shows the same characteristics over time, as generation after generation slowly change. One way or another, the vague notion is that somehow, everything changes at once. The genetic model predicts that intermediate forms will always be "mosaics." Each individual will have some ancestral characteristics, and some descendent characteristics. The numbers of each type of characteristic depends on which mutations occurred by that stage in the evolution from ancestor to descendent. By contrast, the model in which adults can mutate predicts that every characteristic will be equally intermediate between the characteristics of the ancestor and the characteristics of the descendent. Because evolution proceeds according to the rules of normal genetics, "transitional forms" must always be this sort of "mosaic." They will always look like individuals that display part of the genetic diversity of the population--because that is exactly what they are. When people suggest that "there are no transitional fossils," however, they have based their expectation on the "adults-can-mutate" model. While it is true that there are no such transitional forms, it is not because evolution "doesn't happen." It is because it doesn't happen that way. That particular transitional form is an impossibility. Many people who do not have a deep understanding of genetic mechanisms seem to have the unstated assumption that some kind of Lamarckian inheritance occurs, and that individual organisms can somehow change to accommodate some kind of need. Thus, it seems to make sense that transitional forms should be perfect intermediates in all characteristics. It may not be possible, or at least not easy, to cast of this misconception without first gaining a deeper understanding of the genetic and molecular underpinnings upon which evolution rests.

Transitional Forms

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.

Evolution: Library: Whale Evolution

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?

(Read the full entry)

[Jack]

What they oppose are fallacious arguments attempting to paint God as a magical being instead of the Creator that He is.

Actually it's those who believe in gods who paint them as magical beings, and part of the magic they ascribe to them is being creators without having been created themselves.

[loser]

Then why cant you open your mind to the possibility that you are wrong?

I can...but it is so rare a thing.

Yes, since the scientific community values your tests over all others, it is very foolish that we would cling to such an archaic theory.

What's foolish is jumping to incorrect conclusions based on scant and faulty evidence.

Quote: The fact that life exists proves that God could exist. Which god?

The one that really exists.

Science doesn't seek evidence to support a preconceived conclusion.

No, but sadly, scientists DO!

It looks at where the evidence leads to draw conclusions. If the evidence suggested a god, all scientists would be believers. So far the evidence suggests natural processes do just fine without supernatural influence. If you've already decided you know the answer, why ask the questions?

So, are all scientists non-believers, then? If not, then any conclusions are premature.

Quote: The Bible says that Satan deceives the WHOLE WORLD! So wouldn't include what you've posted?

Amazingly, I'm not infullofbull myself!

How about the Doppler Effect? How about Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation? And gasp, scientists are actually looking for the answers instead of reading a 2000 year old story book and getting answers from there.

I already responded to the DE and CMBR question somewhere above. And how is reading a 2000 year old book somehow more foolish than reading last year's darling of the elite? I thought tried and true was more reliable than blind stabs in the dark.

Consult a dictionary please. Belief doesn't need evidence or reason or truth behind it, otherwise organized religion would no longer exist. Belief, by its very nature must transcend logic. You cant try to inject it with 10ccs of nonsensical rambling and call it science, it defeats the entire purpose.

Belief is the psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true. ...The relationship between belief and knowledge is subtle. ...Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge and belief. A primary problem for epistemology is exactly what is needed in order for us to have knowledge. In a notion derived from Plato's dialogue Theaetetus, philosophy has traditionally defined knowledge as justified true belief. The relationship between belief and knowledge is that a belief is knowledge if the belief is true, and if the believer has a justification (reasonable and necessarily plausible assertions/evidence/guidance) for believing it is true. ...On the other hand, most people have the impression that in some cases people don't believe things because they don't want to believe, especially about a matter in which they are emotionally involved. ...To believe something is to hold a thought or opinion based upon evidence or an