Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

The problem is it isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of right and wrong. The other problem with what you said is that there are mountains of evidence that supports evolution, while there is no I repeat no scientific evidence that supports creation. If you can point me to a repeatable experiment that supports creation I'll shut up.

---

Funny! It IS a matter of opinion. If you want an experiment for this, try to crunch the mathematical odds of creation vs. evolution. The odds of us just having evolved are astronomical. How is that for an experiment.

Be that as it may, I am NOT taking sides. So you see, it really is a matter of opinion. Yours vs. Mine. Yours, vs. Others. It all depends what you believe.

Now if you want to talk facts... Where are the half developed spicies? Also, everything in nature is very logical. There is no excess, there is nothing missing. How did that happen? Shouldn't there be spiecies that have parts that are no longe used, as it developes? As for that matter, give me a logical explanation of some of our human emotions? What purpose does Love have and how does it fit in with evolution? It really is not a necessary emotion, as basic instinct would surfice. So, did we get here just by chance... highly (and mathematically) improbable.

Now, I'm not saying that things took place as the bible states. That indeed can not be proven. But just because someone believes that we are part of an intelligent design, does not make then dumb. For all we know, we got put here as a science experiment by other life in the universe. We don't know and we may never know.

In the end, who knows, we might end up being just a tick on a big wet dog??

However, it is equally impossible to prove evolution as it is creation. So, it IS a matter of opinion. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Your right we didn't come from apes. We came from animals like apes but not apes as we know them today.

Apes are modern animals just like we are. At some point we shared a similar ancestor but they took one path that lead them to where they are today while we took a different one.

---

Thank you for clearing this up. It's often asked why some apes evolved into humans, whereas other apes didn't evolve. Of course the answer is that a modern species of ape and humans are different twigs on the same branch, evolved for an equal amount of time. Best adapted for its environment.

It makes me so mad when teachers try to tell you when you are a kid that we, humans, evolved from apes. Come on! It's really pathetic. And even if you don't believe god, Do you really think that we eventually evolved from a monkey to a human? There is no proof whatsoever. We were never Apes! And do you know how scientists explain the formation of earth. They say that all life on earth started from one piece of bacteria. It's really hard to believe that bacteria formed rivers, animals, plants, and apes that eventaully evolved into humans

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LifePaparazzi

Funny! It IS a matter of opinion. If you want an experiment for this, try to crunch the mathematical odds of creation vs. evolution. The odds of us just having evolved are astronomical. How is that for an experiment.

---

That's not an experiment, we have no data to plug in as variables into such a calculation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LifePaparazzi

Be that as it may, I am NOT taking sides. So you see, it really is a matter of opinion. Yours vs. Mine. Yours, vs. Others. It all depends what you believe.

---

Reality does not depend on what you believe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LifePaparazzi

Now if you want to talk facts... Where are the half developed spicies? Also, everything in nature is very logical. There is no excess, there is nothing missing. How did that happen? Shouldn't there be spiecies that have parts that are no longe used, as it developes?

---

"Half developed species" are not as efficient in an evironment as the "fully developed species" (as you put it), so they die out. We have huge amount of evidence for transitional forms.
And you're right, there should be species with parts that are no longer used, like the human tailbone, our upper ear muscles, whale's hind legs? You've seriously never heard the phrase "vestigial organ"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LifePaparazzi

As for that matter, give me a logical explanation of some of our human emotions? What purpose does Love have and how does it fit in with evolution? It really is not a necessary emotion, as basic instinct would surfice. So, did we get here just by chance... highly (and mathematically) improbable.

---

Love makes you stay with your mate, makes you protect your young, helps them to protect your young, makes your young (genes) more likely to survive. We're just complex machines that our genes use to proliferate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LifePaparazzi

Now, I'm not saying that things took place as the bible states. That indeed can not be proven. But just because someone believes that we are part of an inteligent design, does not make then dumb. For all we know, we got put here as a science experiment by other life in the universe. We don't know and we may never know.

---

Sure, not dumb, but people who believe in creation are ignorant of the overwhelming evidence for evolution through natural selection.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LifePaparazzi

However, it is equally impossible to prove evolution as it is creation. So, it IS a matter of opinion. ;)

---

I would say that currently, evolution has several orders of magnitude more evidence than creation, in that way evolution is incredibly more likely to be true than creation, based on what we know. Creation does not explain much of the evidence sufficiently.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasachel

It makes me so mad when teachers try to tell you when you are a kid that we, humans, evolved from apes. Come on! It's really pathetic. And even if you don't believe god, Do you really think that we eventually evolved from a monkey to a human? There is no proof whatsoever.

---

Not proof, but there is an incredible amount of evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sasachel

We were never Apes! And do you know how scientists explain the formation of earth. They say that all life on earth started from one piece of bacteria. It's really hard to believe that bacteria formed rivers, animals, plants, and apes that eventaully evolved into humans

---

Harder to believe than an infinite, invisible, all knowing, all seeing god for which there is no solid evidence?
The bacteria we see today are really well evolved organisms, the first forms of life were likely to be self-replicating protein strands, something similar but much less complex than the DNA that we all still have inside of us. The evidence is right there!

I believe Humans are humans. Animals are Animals.
Although we are oen chromosome away from apes.
I don't believe it.
If people will ask, "Oh yeah, then were did people come from?"
Here's a good questions, Where did Animals come from? How did animals and people appear from the "big bang" ,and even that is a theory. The world is a mystery.
No body knows how the world was created, hw animals were made, how we were created, what happens when we die. No body knows.
Its scary but... such is life.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HarajukuGirl

I believe Humans are humans. animals are Animals.
Although we are oen chromosome away from apes.
I dont belive it.
If people will ask, "Oh yeah, then were did people come from?"
Heres a good questions, Where did Animals come from? How did animals and people appear from the "big bang" ,and even that is a theory. The world is a mystery.
No body knows how the world was created, hw animals were made, how we were created, what happens when we die. no body knows.
Its scary but...such is life.

---

Mud and lightning, right? ;)

There is a whole wealth of information about what we so far understand to be what has happened during the timeline of our universe. I would love to explain it to you but I really do not have the time, read a good cosmology text book. Stellar evolution, planetary formation and all these things are so fascinating to learn about and put everything in perspective.

Hahaha, but of course! :p

I really have to stop thinking so much at 12:30 A.M hahaha
But its ag reat thing to think about , eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LifePaparazzi

Shouldn't there be spiecies that have parts that are no longer used, as it developes?

---

Ever heard about the human appendix? Yes I know the purpose of even that is being debated... just boils down to what information is believed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

That's not an experiment, we have no data to plug in as variables into such a calculation!



Reality does not depend on what you believe.



"Half developed species" are not as efficient in an evironment as the "fully developed species" (as you put it), so they die out. We have huge amount of evidence for transitional forms.
And you're right, there should be species with parts that are no longer used, like the human tailbone, our upper ear muscles, whale's hind legs? You've seriously never heard the phrase "vestigial organ"?



Love makes you stay with your mate, makes you protect your young, helps them to protect your young, makes your young (genes) more likely to survive. We're just complex machines that our genes use to proliferate.



Sure, not dumb, but people who believe in creation are ignorant of the overwhelming evidence for evolution through natural selection.



I would say that currently, evolution has several orders of magnitude more evidence than creation, in that way evolution is incredibly more likely to be true than creation, based on what we know. Creation does not explain much of the evidence sufficiently.

---

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

You are really too funny. I'm glad you believe in evolution. But you are dead wrong about your "overwhelming" evidence. There is actually MORE evidence to support a creation accounts, then there is evolution. You know, you really should do some more research before making these outragous claims. Your argumentative posts seem a bit desperate to me.
-----------------------------
Even Mycoplasma genitalium, the organism with the shortest-known DNA sequence, has approximately 580,000 Base pairs. Each base pair can be one of 4 possible configurations (A-T, C-G, G-C, or T-A), leading to a total of 4580,000 possible genetic codes to try before arriving at a working Mycoplasma genitalium. 4580,000 works out to a number with about 116 thousand zeros in it. Therefore the odds of life appearing at random, as the evolutionists claim, is about one in ten to the 116th power – or so close to zero that if you you rolled the "dice" one million times a second for 4.5 billion years (the evolutionarily-claimed age of the earth) you would bring the odds of creating the Mycoplasma genome all the way up to – wait for it! – 1 in 1092!
-----------------------------
Since you are obviously not going to take my word for it... look at some of these, by authorities on the subject.

------------------
Successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is r200, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 1060, which is impossibly small.
-----------------
Also, for example:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest possible degree…The belief than an organ as perfect as the eye could have formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone."

---Charles Darwin (E. Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, Craig Press, Nutley, New Jersey, 1961, p. 468).
----------------------------------------
"To create from inert matter a living organism--that is, a thing that could replicate itself, metabolize food, etc.--would require a technology beyond imagination. The ultimate problem is that we couldn't possibly put together, in a coherent life-producing sequence, the submicroscopic DNA acid molecules and the surrounding proteins."

---Joel Achenback, "Why Scientists Can't Create Life," Knight-Ridder, February 26, 1989
-------------------------------------

"All the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin."

Dr. Lyall Watson, Science Speaks, Volume 90, May 1982, p.44.
---------------------------------------

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." (R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.)
---------------------------------------

"Darwinian myth is the greatest deceit in the history of science."
- Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Swedish evolutionist

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

The problem, some suggest, is that more than a century after paleontologists started unearthing the bones of all sorts of ancient creatures, we don't have enough fossils to say anything authoritatively about prehistoric life. "I'd say the fossil record is woefully deficient in preserving the absolute diversity of species," says Mark Norell, head of the Division of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. --

"Fossils Unearth Big Debate" USA Today, Nov. 6, 2006.
---------------------------------------

I could go on and on... but I'm sure by now you get the point.

So, all said and done... whatever you believe, is your opinion. It is therefore indeed a matter of opinion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oneguyinohio

Ever heard about the human appendix? Yes I know the purpose of even that is being debated... just boils down to what information is believed.

---

----
You know, I group that in to the category of "What we don't understand fully yet"

It's like electricity. We did not understand it's purpose etc. for centuries. But we understand it now. We do not yet fully know everything about the human body, and new discoveries are made constantly. So that appendix argument holds no gound. I'm sure one day we will fully understand it's pupose.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LifePaparazzi

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

You are really too funny. I'm glad you believe in evolution. But you are dead wrong about your "overwhelming" evidence. There is actually MORE evidence to support a creation accounts, then there is evolution. You know, you really should do some more research before making these outragous claims. Your argumentative posts seem a bit desperate to me.
-----------------------------
Even Mycoplasma genitalium, the organism with the shortest-known DNA sequence, has approximately 580,000 Base pairs. Each base pair can be one of 4 possible configurations (A-T, C-G, G-C, or T-A), leading to a total of 4580,000 possible genetic codes to try before arriving at a working Mycoplasma genitalium. 4580,000 works out to a number with about 116 thousand zeros in it. Therefore the odds of life appearing at random, as the evolutionists claim, is about one in ten to the 116th power – or so close to zero that if you you rolled the "dice" one million times a second for 4.5 billion years (the evolutionarily-claimed age of the earth) you would bring the odds of creating the Mycoplasma genome all the way up to – wait for it! – 1 in 1092!
-----------------------------
Since you are obviously not going to take my word for it... look at some of these, by authorities on the subject.

------------------
Successful production of a 200-component functioning organism requires at least 200 beneficial mutations. The odds of getting that many successive beneficial mutations is r200, where r is the rate of beneficial mutations. Even if r is 0.5 (and it is really much smaller), that makes the odds worse than 1 in 1060, which is impossibly small.
-----------------
Also, for example:

To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd to the highest possible degree…The belief than an organ as perfect as the eye could have formed by natural selection is more than enough to stagger anyone."

---Charles Darwin (E. Shute, Flaws in the Theory of Evolution, Craig Press, Nutley, New Jersey, 1961, p. 468).
----------------------------------------
"To create from inert matter a living organism--that is, a thing that could replicate itself, metabolize food, etc.--would require a technology beyond imagination. The ultimate problem is that we couldn't possibly put together, in a coherent life-producing sequence, the submicroscopic DNA acid molecules and the surrounding proteins."

---Joel Achenback, "Why Scientists Can't Create Life," Knight-Ridder, February 26, 1989
-------------------------------------

"All the physical evidence we have for human evolution can still be placed, with room to spare, inside a single coffin."

Dr. Lyall Watson, Science Speaks, Volume 90, May 1982, p.44.
---------------------------------------

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." (R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.)
---------------------------------------

"Darwinian myth is the greatest deceit in the history of science."
- Dr. Soren Lovtrup, Swedish evolutionist

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

The problem, some suggest, is that more than a century after paleontologists started unearthing the bones of all sorts of ancient creatures, we don't have enough fossils to say anything authoritatively about prehistoric life. "I'd say the fossil record is woefully deficient in preserving the absolute diversity of species," says Mark Norell, head of the Division of Paleontology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York. --

"Fossils Unearth Big Debate" USA Today, Nov. 6, 2006.
---------------------------------------

I could go on and on... but I'm sure by now you get the point.

So, all said and done... whatever you believe, is your opinion. It is therefore indeed a matter of opinion.

---

Sorry, where is the evidence that supports creation accounts?

And I love that Darwin quote. Anyone who uses that quote deserves absolutely no kind of sensible rebuttal. Heh. Digging your own grave :)
Do you really need me to rebut all of these quote on why they are inaccurate, quoted out of context, etc. I've done it many times before on this very site. It would save me a lot of time if you just went and found them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Sorry, where is the evidence that supports creation accounts?

And I love that Darwin quote. Anyone who uses that quote deserves absolutely no kind of sensible rebuttal. Heh. Digging your own grave :)
Do you really need me to rebut all of these quote on why they are inaccurate, quoted out of context, etc.? I've done it many times before on this very site. It would save me a lot of time if you just went and found them.

---

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

Well, show me your proof of evolution's accuracy? You are quick to argue, but I have not seen you present anything? What about the huge mathematical improbablity? Show me.

Oh, and you mentioned the creation account. Again, I am not saying that it is provable. I'm simply stating that I do not feel it possible for us to have evolved. SHOW ME

P.S. I'm very open minded and have read many books about the cosmos etc.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LifePaparazzi

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

Well, show me your proof of evolution's acuracy? You are quick to argue, but I have not seen you present anything? What about the huge mathematical improbablity? Show me

---

Like I said, there is no proof, only evidence.

Well, probabilities are impossible for us to even estimate, we only know about one type of life, the life on this planet, there might have been many different types of life that could have formed. The way that this calculation is performed is assuming that all the bits for this organism came together at once and just made it, but of course natural selection is not random, the fittest survive. The only probability we need to even consider is the probability of the first self-replicating protein. I don't know what those odds will be, but there are other factors missed out, like the number of planets where this life could have formed etc etc. The whole exercise that you quoted just seems like a ridiculous exercise used to generate propaganda, because the ID guys know that some people think math is a reliable tool for this sort of thing.

In any case, 1 in 1092 (that you quoted) are not very long odds at all!

Just to illustrate, take a pack of cards, shuffle them so they're nice and random, then deal them out in a row in front of you. Now, what are the odds of you dealing out the cards in exactly that order? It's 1 in 52*51*50*49*48... *3*2*1, which is about 1 in 80000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000 (that's 67 0s).

But you just did it first try... wow you're good, you must be omnipotent or something right? You must have designed the cards to come out in that order right? I must have made an error in my calculation right? Wrong, things that are unlikely happen every day.

You also quoted someone saying that the evidence for human evolution can fit in one coffin. Of course, this was the case when the quote was given, in 1982. However that's 25 years ago. We now have so many fossils showing such gradual changes from ape to human that scientists argue about where they should draw the line between the species, the big breakthrough in the last 25 years that enabled all this is that we worked out where these fossils are located in the Earth's crust.

And, I just have to point out why your Darwin quote is irrelevant, to save your future embarrassment. In the Origin of species, where that quote is lifted from, the following three pages are him discussing exactly how he believes that they eye could have formed by natural selection, and we see many of the transitional forms from no eye to human eye in many living species today (because they are all functional at different levels). So by using this quote, it shows that you actually have not done your research, which would be reading possibly the most important book about which you are trying to discuss.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

Like I said, there is no proof, only evidence.

Well, probabilities are impossible for us to even estimate, we only know about one type of life, the life on this planet, there might have been many different types of life that could have formed. The way that this calculation is performed is assuming that all the bits for this organism came together at once and just made it, but of course natural selection is not random, the fittest survive. The only probability we need to even consider is the probability of the first self-replicating protein. I don't know what those odds will be, but there are other factors missed out, like the number of planets where this life could have formed etc etc. The whole excercise that you quoted just seems like a ridiculous excercise used to generate propaganda, because the ID guys know that some people think math is a reliable tool for this sort of thing.

In any case, 1 in 1092 (that you quoted) are not very long odds at all!

Just to illustrate, take a pack of cards, shuffle them so they're nice and random, then deal them out in a row in front of you. Now, what are the odds of you dealing out the cards in exactly that order? It's 1 in 52*51*50*49*48.......*3*2*1, which is about 1 in 80000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00000000000000000 (that's 67 0s).

But you just did it first try... wow you're good, you must be omnipotent or something right? You must have designed the cards to come out in that order right? I must have made an error in my calculation right? Wrong, things that are unlikely happen every day.

You also quoted someone saying that the evidence for human evolution can fit in one coffin. Of course, this was the case when the quote was given, in 1982. However that's 25 years ago. We now have so many fossils showing such gradual changes from ape to human that scientists argue about where they should draw the line between the species, the big breakthrough in the last 25 years that enabled all this is that we worked out where these fossils are located in the Earth's crust.

And, I just have to point out why your Darwin quote is irrelevant, to save your future embarassment. In the Origin of species, where that quote is lifted from, the following three pages are him discussing exactly how he believes that they eye could have formed by natural selection, and we see many of the transitional forms from no eye to human eye in many living species today (because they are all functional at different levels). So by using this quote, it shows that you actually have not done your research, which would be reading possibly the most important book about which you are trying to discuss.

---

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

Well, I have read the book in question... but let's put that aside.

Could you point me to a site / location where I can find actuall half- spieces. As far as I am aware, there were a number of scams, from people that wanted to prove evolution. I have to date not seen any actual physical evidence to support that claim. Which is not to say that it does not exist. But I have not seen it.

(Now I'm not being argumentative here) Point me towards a book, you feel worthy, that discusses these latest finds. So far, all the books I have read on this subject have not been very convincing to say the least. Having literally traveled the globe, I have actually visited many dig sites for these "new" creatures. But from what I have seen... I'm honestly not convinced that there is not some logical designer behind them. (And I'm not talking about God here) Either way you twist and turn it, there are valid arguments on both sides.

Which bring me to my original quote of "It is a matter of what you believe" I'd like to believe that evolution were true. But from what I have seen so far, I'm just not convinced. (yet)

A good website would be something like this:

Prominent Hominid Fossils

I don't have any book titles to hand. I'm far too busy with my own workload to be reading about paleontology.

Like they say, the sheer amount of evidence they have makes it hard to work out what the species ancestral to us are, and exactly which fossils belong in our lineage.

In any case, it's striking evidence for evolution, even if it doesn't specifically answer where humans come from. We're well on our way, though. I think the link to apes is fairly well established, especially in light of other evidence like our chromosome 2.

Quote:

---

"The more statistically improbable a thing is, the less we can believe that it just happened by blind chance. Superficially the obvious alternative to chance is an intelligent Designer." (R. Dawkins, "The Necessity of Darwinism". New Scientist, Vol. 94, April 15, 1982, p. 130.)

---

Talk about taking something out of context. Do you really expect anyone who knows anything to believe that Richard Dawkins, the brilliant quintessential proponent of evolution and rabid opponent not just of Creationism but of religion generally, would provide evidence against evolution? It's obvious that his next sentence in this article goes on to debunk the straw man he has set up. And the idea that evolution is statistically impossible is a straw man. And Dawkins has debunked this argument over and over. But he does need to state it before debunking it... That doesn't mean he believes it.

Your argument also begs Dawkins' own challenge to the argument, which has been omitted. What is the likelihood of an intelligent creator spontaneously coming into existence? Certainly, one capable of imitating evolution in every detail, but not using evolution would have to be less than that of evolution itself. So you are left arguing that A is impossible because B is even less likely and you happen to prefer B.

In fact, as Capuchin says, there is lots of evidence for evolution, which is why scientists who read Darwin's book 150 years ago, all accepted the idea within about 10 years even though it was shocking at the time. In the century and a half since, other people have accumulated even more evidence in favor of evolution and none that disproves it. And the none that disproves it is really the most important part for those who remain dubious.

Anyone seriously interested can read about all the evidence elsewhere on this site or, better yet, in books such as One Long Argument by Ernst Mayrs, or on websites devoted to the subject. But there is no evidence for God, which is at it should be, because God is about faith in some greater that you don't question, a whole 'nother way of thinking.

It doesn't make sense to simultaneously argue that you are right because you don't need evidence to prove God's existence, but that biologists are all wrong because they do have evidence but you reject it.

Just Asking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LifePaparazzi

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

Well, show me your proof of evolution's acuracy? You are quick to argue, but I have not seen you present anything? What about the huge mathematical improbablity? Show me.

---

There is mountains of evidence. No way to show it all to you. I'd need a whole library.

I think the most persuasive obvious evidence is the fossil record, which shows the actual story of the evolution laid out epoch by epoch like a children's story book, illustrated with actual stone images of ancient organisms. What follows is just a few highlights, since you are talking about more thant 3 billion years of evolution. That's Billion.

In the oldest rocks are simple bacteria, then come photosynthetic bacteria, which produced so much oxygen, that our atmosphere became filled with it and all of a sudden iron all over the world began to rust and appear in sedimentary layers as orange layers. Later came other organisms that could eat the photosynthetic bacteria and then multicellular soft organisms like jellyfish. And finally, hard shelled animals sea animals begin to appear and then animals with backbones like us--sharks (with cartilage skeletons) and then bony fish. We have lots of traits in common with fish, because we are descended from fish.

After that the first lobe-finned fish appear in the fossil record. They could walk on mud and they had lungs. After them, still in the fossil record, ordered by date, come the amphibians (animals like frogs and salamanders). After those come the reptiles (including turtles, crocodiles, lizards and snakes, dinosaurs and birds). From the reptiles evolved the mammals. Reptiles, birds, and mammals all share many features such as the amniotic egg--a special kind of egg with lots of membranes. (You may have seen that bird eggs and turtle eggs are similar. It turns out that mammalian eggs are tiny inside of us, but also structured the same way, because we are related to birds and reptiles. We all have backbones and skulls and four limbs (arms and legs).

Within the mammals you can find a steady progression of animals going from the ancient primates, insectivores (shrews and mole) up through more ancient primates that evolved in tropical forests of what is now northern Wyoming. From those came monkeys and then the most ancient great apes. Some of those eventually evolved into gorillas,some into orangutans, some into chimpanzees, and of course, some into humans. Most of the great apes that have ever lived are now extinct of course. Only a few family lineages continue to survive.

The fossil record just goes on and one. It's all in order by date and shows the entire story of evolution laid out in great detail, including lots of fossils showing virtually every stage in the evolution of horses--for example, if you are hungering for a gradual record. In other places there are gaps, just because it's statistically unlikely for many animals to be preserved at all, let alone one exactly every 5000 years or so like ticks of a clock. It's normal and expected for there to be bits and pieces missing. It would be strange if nothing were missing, as if there had been an intelligence archivist keeping track of every species that ever lived. And of course, there is no Archivist, so what gets preserved is pretty random. Soft animals like slugs don't get preserved much. Also very delicate animals such as small insects or tiny flowes. But trees, pollen, and big animals with hard bones, like dinosaurs or ones with hard shells, like clams DO get preserved. So we know more about dinosaurs, horses and clams than we do about insect evolution. But even insects get preserved sometimes, such as in amber--which is tree sap that is millions of years old.

The entire story of evolutuion has been confirmed by comparing the anatomy of modern animals to show that ones that are more closely related have more features in common than those that are less related. Like all mammals have hair and similar teeth. While birds and dinosaurs have similar hips. All the crocodiles have similar skulls, that are different from those of turtles, mammals, or even lizards. They have their own lineage. And then modern crocodiles also have hearts that are different too, so we know it's not just the preserved bones that are different. The same family story is confirmed again when we look at the embryological development of these animals. Related animals tend to develop in similar ways--and I'm talking about patterns of cell division, not the debunked drawings by Haeckel. AND the same family relations have also been confirmed by comparing amino acid sequences in proteins. Animals that are closely related have similar proteins. And the same family trees have been likewise confirmed by looking at base sequences in DNA. There isn't a single reason not to believe that evolution happened here on Earth.And then you can look at the evolution of plants and find the same pattern of commmon descent, where some plants all belong in the same family, and other plans are in other families. Sometimes when organisms persist over millions of years, they change a lot -- like people have over the last 6 million years. Other times, they stay the same and hardly change at all--like cockroaches, ants, and anteaters. If what an animal is doing works well, they can stay the same. If their environment changes and lots of them are dying, then they tend to change over time. And that's the end of my less for today!

Just Asking

Apparently evidence, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capuchin

A good website would be something like this:

Prominent Hominid Fossils

I don't have any book titles to hand. I'm far too busy with my own workload to be reading about paleontology.

Like they say, the sheer amount of evidence they have makes it hard to work out what the species ancestral to us are, and exactly which fossils belong in our lineage.

In any case, it's striking evidence for evolution, even if it doesnt specifically answer where humans come from. We're well on our way, though. I think the link to apes is fairly well established, especially in light of other evidence like our chromosome 2.

---

Capuchin is absolutely right. Between 6 million years ago and now, there are huge numbers of fossils of hominins--ancient animals that are part way between ancient apes and ourselves. We can tell how like us they are and we know when each kind lived. But it's not easy to tell exactly which ones are descended from which because many of them lived at the same time. That is there were sometimes several half-human, half-ape like animals living at the same time. It must have been a strange time.

If you look at all of them together, then you can see that over time, they become less like apes and more like us. It's the big picture story of evolution, like in my last post that tells the story in dated rock images of what happened. Those rock images--which are In Order, just like the pages of a book--make it clear that 6 million years ago there were apes living in trees. Then these apes (which were ancient apes, not modern chimpanzees or gorillas) started to walk on two legs (while still in the forests).They probably ate fruits and nuts and may have started walking because of having to wade during part of the year when there was seasonal flooding. (maybe)

They also evolved hands and shoulders that would have been good for throwing stones and digging with sticks. They still looked like apes and had small brains, but they walked upright and could manipulate stones, throw them and hammer on things better than any other ape before them. They may have needed those special hands to drive off leopards by throwing stones, because lots of these apes had leopard teeth marks on their fossilized bones. They may have used sticks to dig for roots in the ground because the climate became drier and the forests full of fruit (their usual diet) were beginning to die out and be replaced by grasslands. Eventually, these apes that could walk and throw stones, started stealing food from lions and hyenas, probably throwing stones at the bigger predators. Then, about 2.5 million years ago, these apes started making stone tools that they used to cut whole limbs from the carcasses they were stealing. We can find the worked stone tools, bones that have been smashed to get the bone marrow, and eventually bones that show cut marks. The ape-like animals hadn't started hunting, but they could steal meat and cut it up.

About 1.8 million years ago, some of these ape-like "hominins" evolved to run long distances. They had many of the same adaptations that dogs have, which are also long distance runners. Only these hominins were even better runners than dogs. They could run maybe 75 to 100 miles a day. They evolved a special "nuchal tendon" at the back of the neck for steadying the head while they ran (horses have something similar, but neither modern apes nor ancient ones do). They evolved large buttock muscles that stabilized the trunk so they didn't flop around when they ran and they evolved Achilles tendons that absorbed and released energy like a spring with each step, making their running more efficient. They didn't evolve for sprinting, like cheetahs, but for running more slowly for hours at a time. These adaptations made these ape-like animals look very like us! They were not human yet though because they still had small brains. But they were part way between ancient ape ancestors and humans. They walked and ran upright, they had shoulders and elbows adapted for throwing overhand very hard. (All other apes, modern and ancient, have to throw underhand). The idea that there is no "missing link" is not true. There are lots of links in the chain of evolution from the most ancient hominins on up to human beings.

Only later, did these same half-ape half-humans evolve larger brains. In fact, the neanderthals had even larger brains than ours. But in some ways other apes evolved more than we did. For example, gorillas evolved thinner enamel on their teeth, probably for chewing leaves and grass when they couldn't find fruit. But our ancestors kept the thicker enamel for chewing hard objects-possibly hard roots. Ancient apes from which both gorillas and humans evolved had thick enamel on their teeth, so in this case, the gorillas evolved thinner enamel and we didn't. We seem to have kept an ancient trait.

I just wrote a chapter of a book on the evolution of humans, so all this information comes from recent scientific journal articles or recent interviews with scientists in places like Time online, or Science magazine. Over the last 5 months, I read about a hundred scientific papers, stories, or book chapters from academic books. Of course, I realize Life Papparazi may choose to reject all this evidence--which is just the tip of the ice berg--but it's not true to say that there is no evidence for evolution generally or for the evolution of humans. There's lots and it's fun to learn about.
Just Asking

I saw a great show today dealing with genetics and control genes involving research on birds and their relationship to dinosaurs. It showed how birds have extra vertibrae that no longer develop because of control genes. When manipulations were done those control genes were basically shut off allowing the extra vertebrae to develop. The show went on to explain how all of the characteristics were still contained within the chromosomes, so that the control genes are what caused the birds to be different than dinosuars. There were different control genes for each portion of the body for which scientist continue to investigate. I'm not saying they are able to make dinosaurs, but scientist are developing more understandings about evolutionary processes and how the genes are controlled that allow for the changes. All it seemed to take was an addition or subtraction of certain proteins to stimulate the control genes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oneguyinohio

...scientist are developing more understandings about evolutionary processes and how the genes are controlled that allow for the changes. All it seemed to take was an addition or subtraction of certain proteins to stimulate the control genes.

---

Interesting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

Of course, I realize Life Papparazi may choose to reject all this evidence--which is just the tip of the ice berg--but it's not true to say that there is no evidence for evolution generally or for the evolution of humans. There's lots and it's fun to learn about.

---

Touché, I stand currently defeated by all of your statements. It seems that I need to do more research about recent discoveries. But beliefe you me, I am NOT a religious person and have held on to my believes based on my previous studies of the topic... um um.. years ago. I will certainly wrap my brain around any new data on the subject. Hey, not all of us are stuck up know it alls. Some of us are open minded enough to re-think the subject, like me. :eek:

Thanks for the info.;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LifePaparazzi

Touche, I stand currently defeated by all of your statements. It seems that I need to do more research about recent discoveries. But beliefe you me, I am NOT a religious person and have held on to my believes based on my previous studies of the topic... um um.. years ago. I will certainly wrap my brain around any new data on the subject. Hey, not all of us are stuck up know it alls. Some of us are open minded enough to re-think the subject, like me. :eek:

Thanks for the info.;)

---

You are welcome! I'm delighted to have told you something you didn't know. Evolutionary biology is actually a pretty solid science and really interesting. I very much appreciate your gracious reply.

I'm wondering though who told you that evolution was in doubt? Was this in a high school or college biology class?

Best,
Asking

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oneguyinohio

I saw a great show today dealing with genetics and control genes involving research on birds and their relationship to dinosaurs. It showed how birds have extra vertibrae that no longer develop because of control genes. When manipulations were done those control genes were basically shut off allowing the extra vertebrae to develop. The show went on to explain how all of the characteristics were still contained within the chromosomes, so that the control genes are what caused the birds to be different than dinosuars. There were different control genes for each portion of the body for which scientist continue to investigate. I'm not saying they are able to make dinosaurs, but scientist are developing more understandings about evolutionary processes and how the genes are controlled that allow for the changes. All it seemed to take was an addition or subtraction of certain proteins to stimulate the control genes.

---

"The control genes of birds are different." No scientific explanation as to how they became different. Or were these control genes there all along? No one can absolutely say for sure.

How did the information get to these chromosomes in the first place?

Why would dinosaurs have "flight genes" and not use them?

The science states what is there.

Some humans assume it somehow got there through evolution, that is no different than some humans saying that God created.


As to self replicating proteins, is human heredity through genes or proteins?

How did these self replicating proteins make the switch to DNA as the main mechanism of heredity and cellular control?

Did these proteins somehow decide to become ribosomes and somehow know how to interact with MRNA and TRNA, and amino acids? What of the cellular editing after initial protein synthesis. How is this all possible through the all creating force of natural selection?

The more one knows of real factual science the more silly and impossible evolution becomes.


Is natural selection intelligent to have designed this?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

The more one knows of real factual science the more silly and impossible evolution becomes.

---

I know a few thousand scientists that would disagree with you on that one.
NCSE Resource

The problem as I see it is that evolution is a hard subject to grasp it's very complicated and one shouldn't be expected to get it without good amount of research. It's much easier for people to "get" god did it you don't need to understand it and then go on there way. That however doesn't make god did it the right answer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

I know a few thousand scientists that would disagree with you on that one.
NCSE Resource

The problem as I see it is that evolution is a hard subject to grasp it's very complicated and one shouldn't be expected to get it without good amount of research. It's much easier for people to "get" god did it you don't need to understand it and then go on there way. That however doesn't make god did it the right answer.

---

God aside I have read a handful (just what I have found) of geneticists that would argue the validity of your statements.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by inthebox

Some humans assume it somehow got there thru evolution, that is no different than some humans saying that God created.

---

Proving evolution doesn't disprove god - it just disproves the biblical version of events. I understand that presents a problem for a lot of people, but evolution makes no claim for or against "god".

It seems that when science makes a new claim or discovery you dismiss it because it doesn't answer every single question you can think of. That doesn't mean it's wrong. I know religion has an answer to everything, "God did it" or "God works in mysterious ways" but is that really an answer? That's like saying "Because I said so". Science, instead, says, "Here's what we know, here's what we think, here's what we still need to figure out."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Smoked

god aside i have read a handful (just what i have found) of geneticists that would argue the validity of your statements.

---

A handful of people without evidence is meaningless. Every experiment ever done has either supported evolution or did nothing to prove it wrong. If it did we would abandon the theory of evolution and start working on a new theory. That's the way science works it's only religion that doesn't abandon theories when they conflict with reality.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by asking

You are welcome! I'm delighted to have told you something you didn't know. Evolutionary biology is actually a pretty solid science and really interesting. I very much appreciate your gracious reply.

I'm wondering though who told you that evolution was in doubt? Was this in a high school or college biology class?

Best,
Asking

---

I did a 500 page paper on the subject when I was in college. I put over a years worth or research in to it. But, that was back in the eightees and there are, as it appears, new discoveries, which I did not take in to consideration during this discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by michealb

Every experiment ever done has either supported evolution or did nothing to prove it wrong. If it did we would abandon the theory of evolution and start working on a new theory.

---

I agree. Just finding questions that one person or another can't answer doesn't prove that evolution is wrong. When we DO find answers, they have so far always been consistent with evolution. Over 150 years, that's a lot of evidence in favor of evolution.

Sometimes when someone keeps asking questions that haven't been answered yet or which the particular person talking doesn't know the answers to and insists that the answer is that it was God, people call that kind of reasoning "God is in the gaps." That is, God is supposed to be the answer to whatever a certain person doesn't know. So, for example, if I didn't know how plants can pull water to the tops of tall trees, I might say that since I don't know how that works and I assume no one else does, then the answer is that God moves the water to the top of the tree (instead of evaporation in the leaves and "stickiness" of water molecules inside the plants' "pipes"). In fact, there is an answer, whether the person knows it or not, even if no one knows it yet. But someone will figure it out eventually.

Questions about how things work are different from why questions, like Why are we here? How things work questions can usually be answered eventually. Those are the kinds of questions that science is good at.

Asking

Just posting to see if this thread is working correctly. I've read the last post 6 times but it keeps appearing as though a new post has been added?