Evolution Revolution: "We haven't scratched the surface"

The author wrote:

But the reason Darwin’s work holds up today, said Wilson, was because he was the epitome of a disciplined scientist.

The above sentence is not grammatically correct. If it were a direct quote, I would leave it be, as you cannot change what someone actually said. However, it does not appear to be a quote but rather the author's sentence.

It should read either:

But the reason Darwin’s work holds up today, said Wilson, is that he was the epitome of a disciplined scientist. OR

Darwin’s work holds up today, said Wilson, because he was the epitome of a disciplined scientist.

Time for Winter Closet Cleaning.
Throw the 90% unnamed, unmissed creastures to the extinction dump
Even some pesky named ones, Starting with mosquotoes

The title is "On the Origin of Species", not “On the Origin of the Species”. Darwin did not discuss our species in the book but rather talked about how different species of animals (specifically the finch) can arise. It's a common error in the general public, but I expected better from a science and technology blog.

Huh? Mosquotoes? Are those plant or animal?

How anyone with any brain activity at all could believe this nonsense boggles the mind. But to teach this lie to our children is a crime against not only them but also God. Think about ist.

chuck

Why is my comment still awaiting moderation after over four hours? It's simply grammatical point I'm making. Nothing controversial or in bad taste. You should take a look at the awful comments a lot of folks make on your Political Ticker. Good grief.

Why be so afraid to talk creation....When the Lord God made the earth and the heavens-and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the flield had yet sprung up, for the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground-the Lord God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and then man became a living being.....(see Genesis 2)

We have certainly 'evoled' since that time in both the physical and mental capacity....all in God's perfect design....it's not wrong to give our Creator the credit where it's due.....I'm sure years from now man, and all living life, will be so much more than it is now.....all part of God's design

Two comments so far and both are totally ignorant of the subject matter. I hope one of the "unmissed creatures" Franko wants to get rid of is the one that would have saved his life from some disease. As for Callahan, your position isn't science.
***************
Everything I've read on Darwin says his "aha" moment came AFTER he left the Galapagos, not while he was there.

Hello everybody-

Look before you leap. The link below exposes a question amongst thinkers in general- the fear of questioning a theory, oops! a fact?

Now, lets get the kids worked up into a group praising (worship?) Darwin! The Emory University's workshop geared for 'teachers' certainly does not sound like a good idea to me.

http://www.theledger.com/article/20080218/COLUMNISTS03/802180344

A good idea? Let science BE science.

Dan, why not extend your rhetoric to the "worship" of Newton, Copernicus, and Einstein, who all contributed fundamental realities of science without people declaring them to be demi-gods.

Don't conflate your religiousity with the scientific endeavour and challenge to pull America out of the backwater of "Scientific Creationism" and "Intelligent Design."

To all you creationist supporters.
The facts are:
-"creationism" is a pure belief based upon writings in a book of partial fact and partial fiction...aka the Bible. Genesis is essentially at best centuries old here-say.
-"creationism" has absolutely no ties with "science," or the scientific method of analysis which requires facts, measurements, specimens.
-"Science" teaches us to make "observations" that are compiled to develop "theories" as to why things are as they were measured/observed. All you whack jobs who try to disprove "theories" aren't really making any inroads...theories are imperfect, but at least their semi-finished conclusions are based from the previously mentioned "factual" primary sources.
-Many people do not believe in Christianity or any religion for that matter, therefore trying to teach them about fairy tales and pure conjecture not based in any "facts, measurements, physical observations" is an imposition on their right to not have religious beliefs imposed on them.

The lesson boys and girls, and adults with child-like minds is:
If you want to teach creationism to your own children, have them go to Sunday school at your religious place of worship, or send them to a christian private school where they may teach such things in a "science" class.

If "science" were as easy as creationism was, why wouldn't 'god' just give us all magic carpets to fly around on, or the ability to teleport ourselves ala Star Trek. Why would god allow two candidates in a row of limited intelligence to be actual and potential leaders of the free world (Palin, W Bush)?

BTW If republicans want to attract a majority or the younger voting generation, get off your high morality horses on issues like the existence and second class treatment of gays, a person's right to choose whether to bear a child, or any other issue that involves teaching of religious beliefs in a classroom or on a street corner; I'm getting sick and tired of it.

Don't even worry about the link to the Casey Lusken article, a DI hack debunked all over the scientific web. What creationists don't get is that the scientist who comes along and successfully "debunks" Darwin (which won't happen the way they think it will) will be the most honored scientist ever.

It's amazing that Darwin discovered natural selection (with some help) in an era that didn't even know about DNA. As has been said famously before, I'd rather have an ape for an uncle than a religious fool for a father.

Evolution does not disprove God. Scientists theorize and grasp the first moments of time and the big bang. None of them agree on before. Everything is by the design of God..regardless if Man was created instantly or through a symbolic day of evolution.

Furthermore.. Jesus Christ is the way the truth and the life.

Simple logic:
If I am wrong then nothing is lost, but if I am right I am glad I found Jesus.. others that are lost will proclaim Jesus as the lord then be cast into the pit.

Just the fact that Darwinistic evolution is assumed to be "fact" is what's troubling. Unfortunately the SCIENTIFIC evidence doesn't support the assertion that we all descended from one organism (or for that matter the INCREDIBLY low likelihood that any living thing came to be by chance). There isn't even a reliable fossil record to demonstrate that human beings descended from apes, supposedly our "closest" ancestor. The fact is that scientific logic says that the most likely cause should be assumed true until evidence emerges that makes something else more likely, and the most likely thing is that we were created (I'm purposely avoiding stating my own beliefs here). I'm really tired to people saying that creation isn't scientific. By the measures that people say this Darwinism isn't scientific either...

Someone please tell me which race of humans is the most evolved? All the races could not have shown up at the same time, that would suggest creation. So which race is the most recent addition?

I'm sorry, Dan, but evolution IS falsifiable in theory, despite the article you link to which is from a guy who founded a creationist institution and is by no means a biologist. The idea that evolution leads to little or no "benefits" is also pattently false. For example, if every organism was a separate creation, how could testing drugs or products on non-humans lead to any conclusions about the potential impacts on humans? I haven't checked all the credentials of the individuals quoted in your article, but when the lead author is an attorney with an M.S. in Earth Sciences, well, that's hard to take seriously in terms of evolutionary biology. Are any of you three willing to claim that you would accept the idea of god being falsifiable in theory? Doesn't sound like it. As for letting science be science, I'm not sure evolutionary theory is supposed to provide answers on how life began in terms of cellular organization.

BTW, have you heard that the "theory" of gravity has been challenged by the theory of intelligent falling? I hope science can be science and give this alternate explanation the time and energy it so deserves. . .

God created, for our use, not just re-useable, but dis-poseable
Kill till extinct a species – uncooked meal sent back to the Chef

The Allmighty Chef apologizes, with a more delicious species
Hence the proof of the Intelligent Apologetic Chef

Jason... brother, you need some help. If you think that all adults who believe that "God is" axiomatically have "child-like minds" then you don't get out much. There are plenty of extremely intelligent people (by this I mean world renowned scientists) who question Darwinism, and they're not even necessarily theists.
Why can't creationism have any ties with science? If God did create, then wouldn't it be awesome if we could continually expand on our knowledge of His creation?
Your vitriole only proves that you are a theist, and Darwinism (or whatever form evolution takes, Will E.) is your god. This fact is demonstrated by your lack of objectivity, Jason.
In the interest of full disclosure, I'm certainly not the "smartest guy in the room", but I know enough to question what I see, and I don't buy any assumptions on their own merit with out validation. As a Christian, I respect anyone's "right to be wrong".
Also, the difference between the theory of gravity and the "theory" of evolution is that the fact that Newtonian physics appears to break down at the quantum level doesn't inform any moral decision. If we're all descended from a common ancestor then might really does make right and I have (potentially) a justifiable impetus to eliminate weaker members of my species in the name of progress. Stickers in text books notwithstanding, we shouldn't be teaching evolution as fact in a publicly funded school. That's importing religion in to the classroom. It's the religion that denies God. That's not pluralism, friends.

God Created Science. Sorry creationalists, but it is true. If you took the time to explore evolution along with the big bang theory (which is recognized by the church) you would see that they follow the exact same track. There is only one difference. Time. As the church has blessed the big bang theory which cover billions of years... i think it is safe to say that the church is not arrogant enough to limit God to one human day. In fact every single discovery in evolution is further proof that a story written thousands of years ago, (when the number zero had yet to be invented...) got it pretty close.

In order for us to be free, we need to have choice. We need to be able to choose to be good or bad; turn left or right. The only way we really have freedom of choice is to live in a world of chance. Every new discovery that science makes shines a light on the extraordinary detail of Gods design. Markers that he has left for us to discover as we advance ourselves and grow as a society.

Science is proving the existence of God every day. The only reason that there is still a debate (from a smaller and smaller group of people) is that the church is afraid of loosing their following. I believe that if the church embraced science, more people would be willing to come back to the church and our lives would be richer as a civilization.

Evolution is a religion. Science can only talk about what is testable. Is evolution a method we can use to explain minor changes we can observe in the here and now? Prehaps. Is it a method we can prove by science as a means by which we originated? Not unless you have a time machine. If it isn't testable it isn't science. Therefore Evolution as a means of origins isn't science. It's based on faith, thus it is religion. Just like intelligent design.

If only people knew more math....there wouldn't be so many people calling evolution, as a means of origins, science. It starts from unprovable axioms taken by faith, and built up from there.

If someone has doubts, given the evidence, that there is an extremely high probability (nothing in science can be 100%–but this comes about as close as one can get) that we are decendents from less intelligent primates, than the person is either not too bright, misinformed, or has some other agenda because the idea is psychologically too uncomfortable for them.

And belief in God is not a necessary barrier to understanding evolution.

As to the question of which race is "more evolved", the answer involves some subtle points. First, "more evolved" does not mean more advanced or capable. A species can lose abilities (humans, for example, lost the ability to make certain nutrients, and therefore have to consume these "vitamins" externally).

The idea is that species tend to adapt to the environment over time, because the members who do not have fewer or no offspring. There is no necessary direction, then, for either more or less complexity or sophistication.

Secondly, the original single individual all humans are derived from, probably from the southern part of Africa (and there is some debate here), was so recent that the differences between the "races" is far out-swampt by the overwhelming commonality between people. A person 10 thousand years ago was basically the same as we are now–just as natively smart and talented–there just has not been enough generations to cause much of a difference.

I have to ask this of the believers in creation...

Wisdom teeth. Most of us have them removed, right? Why? Any dentist will tell you it's because there's not enough room in our jaws for this extra set of molars.

So there isn't enough room in our jaws for all the teeth our body makes... what "perfect deity" screws up that badly?

The same goes for our eyes. Our optic nerve passes in front of our retina, effectively causing a blind spot. Check the internet, there are neat tests to show this.

What "perfect deity" screws up that badly?

For anyone to doubt the validity of evolution in this day and age is simply ludicrous. But it seems there are still those who cling to old myths and superstions about clay and a rib or magical "Poofing" of everything into existence. They think they know more than thousands of scientists with high IQ's and advanced degrees in science. They cling to an old book of myths that was written thousands of years ago by members of a primitive culture. Every primitive culture has it's creation myths. Sorry, but they're all just wrong.

Some say that evolution is a theory, not a fact. The truth is that it's a "Scientfic Theory" which is held to a higher standard. One definition of a scientific theory is "a statement or group of statements that explain the observable facts." The observable facts are that life evolves. The "theory" part is the exact mechanisms of how that occurs. While there is still some minor debate on the exact mechanisms, the fact that life evolves is not disputed by credible scientists.

I'll take science over millenia-old myths any day.

This ought to be good...

I'm not going to stand here and say there is no god. But I know that creationism/intelligent design is not science. Evolution is based in science because it produces hypotheses that are testable through the scientific method whereas creationism does not. There is no way to test the creationism/intelligent design. You need testable hypothesis; you cannot base a science on making unsubstantiated claims about evolution.

If we're talking science, let's clear some things up:

Theories are ideas that are repeatedly examined and tested (scientifically) to be valid.

Laws are statements of the physical world which are declared to be fact.

Gravity is considered a law, not a theory. A statement cannot be formed to allow evolution to ever become a law, therefore it remains a "theory." The theory in this case regards tendencies in the biological world. Such complex systems can be analyzed theoretically. That said, specific aspects of evolutionary biology ARE considered to be law.

That said, no one here doubts that gravity exists, but additionally, no one knows EXACTLY how it works. Newton was wrong, Einstein was wrong, and the things we do today will be further refined. The lack of understanding the fundamentals of our world doesn't mean we should ignore the evidence we see.

I just do not know or understand,
Is this an insecurity, to be junk food hunger killed ?
Or the joy and delight of being alive, questioning and exploring
Fun to be, even if we stomp on flowers, Wrong Whales, Roaches

The Descent of Man is a horrible and racist book. It identifies Africans, Native Australians, and the Irish as inferior races that threaten humanity. It served as a basis for eugenics and paved the way for Hitler.

We should not call something awful good.

Hello again,

Slow down guys- Apostate/ Jason/ Will E./ Bob/ Steve

Bashing someone as being a 'creationist' or 'ludicrous' when one is not... is not a nice thing to do.

Back to the post, the article is about the 'Evolution Revolution' and the fallout from Emory University's zealous David Lynn's push to:

--------–
Lynn was among organizers of an Emory workshop, “Evolution Revolution: Science Changing Life.” It was aimed at high school teachers trying to rev up their students’ interest in how evolution is changing our world now.

The gathering is getting a head start on celebrating Darwin’s 200th birthday next year. It’s also the 150th anniversary of “On the Origin of the Species,” Darwin’s pioneering research on one of the most important concepts in science.
--------

It's this 'gathering' of H. S. teachers that leads up to the celebrating Darwin's birth that is not 'science'!

A 'zealous evolutionist'? I can live with labeling Mr. Lynn this, can
you's?

As regard to my linking to Casry Luskin's article. If he is a part of the ID push or not, his article on what Florida is doing is an informative, not a scientific, article.

Throwing out a man due to whether he believes in "design" or "God" or not ... this is NOT Science. What you's BELIEVE how life is here.... is of no consequence, science IS science.

I am not a scientist, but In doing simple research on the "The Scientific Method", Galileo, Newton, Einstein are mentioned and extolled. Darwin is not. I believe these three persons believed in God (Einstein believed in Spinoza's God) and this mindset (belief) greatly influenced their discoveries. If they were alive today, you's would believe they would be "evolutionists"? I believe they would believe in "God". If they did believe in God today, would YOU'S expell them and their discoveries? This would be bad.

The wall in science is there. Remove it and let science BE science.

Darwinism a religion? An accurate observation Rob.

Wow... don't completely agree with Evolution and you're labled a fool, ludicrous or a myth lover... What if you don't agree and are an athiest?

What would you say to a non-religious person who has evolutionary doubts... especially given what we know about cell division, polymer enzymes (helicase) and the fossil records?

I'm glad some people didn't just fall in line with things like the world being flat, the universe revolving around Earth, DDT is great, leeches help fever and every other thing Science agreed on in the past. A closed mind is dangerous no matter what side of an issue you are on.

I think it's important to note that Darwin didn't base his ideas on fossils but on the animals and plants he observed on his journey around the world. He was a naturalist, not a paleontologist.

Evolution is as plain as day when you take the time to actually look at the evidence instead of having a knee-jerk reaction based on myths and superstitions.

One has but to look around at the animals and plants today to see how utterly obvious evolution is.

When people actually look at the evidence, use logic and reason to evaluate it, the answer is undeniable. Life evolves, period.

How is it not being open minded to see undeniable, crystal clear, scientific evidence and make conclusions based on that and by using logic and reason????

As opposed to blindly accepting multi-millenia old primitive myths about clay and ribs and magical poofing by an invisible, supernatural Santa Claus in the sky?

Again, the choice is clear. Science or myth. As I said, I'll take science any day.

Picture and theory of an Apple is not the Apple
The issue is; what theory provides what useful results
Accurately useful, as a predictor ?
Or useful for contentment, fear reduction ?

Good night sleep counting wonderful Guardian Angels
Might be very theraputic.
Fear of the Monster Apple Worm
We need to intelligently design that out

Dan,
Science is not dogmatic. True, some ideas take time to be accepted, but after thorough analysis, the scientific community comes to an agreement. Science books are rewritten to accept the most current knowledge of a subject (unlike religious texts). The scientific community accepts evolution to be fundamental....sorry, but it's true. The discovery of DNA and analysis of genetics only builds the credibility of evolution. Not to mention the geological and astronomical records which give credence to the idea that evolution takes hundreds of millions of years. Physics can be annoying like that.

The discussion of a god is not paramount to the scientific works of Newton or Einstein. So their belief on this non-scientifc aspect has nothing to do with science. If you start with a blank slate, are presented with millions of observations of the world and universe, the conclusion that a god had something to do with it is not valid, even if it happens to be true!!

People have faith in intelligent design - rats, roaches and mosquitoes
Faith in Devil CO2 - Not Hell of a Heat; but dead by ice, we become
Faith in the Greenspan Fraud, Dead by Debth, is the economy
Faith in the goodness of Mega$oft, have the rigteous zombies
Suck on your personally designed sugar coated pacifier,
and save for the heavenly dentist's bills

Hi,

Tony, Steve et. al.

For the sake of clarification:

1) Evolution- How species change over time
OR
1) Evolution- How life started here when the Earth was devoid of any form of life.

I have no problem with #1.

#2 takes belief no matter what you think. No evidence will ever be found. On the other hand, the complexity of the most simple cell leads countless real scientists, as well as myself, to believe 'design' by what is observed (scientific).

Why some people and even some scientists can not stand to register this view as 'scientific' is more akin to imprisoning those who believed the world was round.

Saying that:
--------–
Evolution is as plain as day when you take the time to actually look at the evidence instead of having a knee-jerk reaction based on myths and superstitions
--------–
dose not make it so. Ignorance is dangerous. If this were so 'utterly obvious', are scientists who see 'design' stupid? Not 'real' scientists?

So, what type of Evolution?
#1 or #2?

Darwin never said men came from apes. What he he did say however was, "We must not make the mistake of supposing that the progenitor of the whole simian species looked like or in any way resembled an existing ape or man." This is not an exact quote as I read it many years ago, but the best I can remember it.
The author of this article did not say, "Might is Right" or anything like it. He repeated what Darwin said, that the survival of the fittest, is the idea behind evolution. That is, the best able to adapt to a situation. This is not defined by physical strength except when physical strength is the solution to a specific issue. Resisting disease may be much more beneficial than the ability to kill your neigbors.
Last, any theory that is "proven" through research, becomes a "fact", and is no longer a theory.

oh yeah,

Tony, can you talk to Steve about not being dogmatic?

It appears he does not know a person who believes in evolution can be dogmatic too! His last post is.....

Dan,
I think you had a Freudian slip...you have both of those listed as "1"

Anyway, evolution does not pretend to explain the origin of the FIRST species. Although, scientists are generating self-replicating proteins in laboratories starting with conditions found on a primate Earth...but have yet to make any scientific claims on where we actually come from.

Take any other dynamic complex system and ask how it started. The solar system, waves of sand in the desert, or even snow flakes. It is evident that complex systems generate states of near-equilibrium that appear to be quite arranged and well-ordered. These directly correlate to resonating (vibrating) points of any complex system built on defined principles.

Certainly you don't think a god is forming the complex DESIGNS that are formed by snowflakes, do you? No, they are constructed by the defined principles of physics.

If you model an early solar system, one of millions of objects with similar absolute velocities all acting on each other with gravity, that system will converge on a point of near-equilibrium where many objects will combine, and these larger objects will orbit each other. This is the nature of all complex systems. Our own solar system is still refining it's equilibrium. Every time a comet hits a planet or an asteroid enters Earth's atmosphere (which is quite often). So even the solar system is "evolving."

Just because we don't understand all the elements of physics, how things began, doesn't mean we should be jumping to conclusions. Saying you see design (by a "designer") in a cell makes you sound as ignorant as the one that said a "designer" makes all the snowflakes. Take a step back and look at things rationally. Just because one design is more complex than another, that doesn't mean it must be beyond the scope of reality. It usually just means there are more inputs to the system.

The notion of complex systems defining existence may be difficult to understand. But that's all the more reason to try to try and understand them.

I can see there is a design if you consider that life evolved in response to the natural laws of the Universe. And that given a similar environment and a similar mix of chemicals, sunlight, temperature, etc. life would follow a similar evolutionary path every time. Just as a star will evolve along the exact same path given a similar mass of hydrogen to begin with. Atoms and molecules will always behave in the same way given the same set of circumstances because the follow the natural laws of the Universe. In other words, life will follow the same design, given the same circumstances. We see examples of that and call it Parallel Evolution. Animals the fill a similar niche in the environment tend to be similar in appearance.

The real question in my mind is, was there an intelligent, purposeful designer (i.e. God) behind these natural laws? It would make more sense to me, if such an entity exists, that it would program everything in from the start. So that after the Big Bang, life would arise and evolve in response to the natural laws built in or preprogrammed into the Universe.

I would tend to go along with Einstein's belief in "Something like Spinoza's God. (Einstein didn't say he believed in Spinoza's god, but in something LIKE that). My reason would be because it does seem to me (my opiinion only) that there seems to be a natural propensity for life to arise and evolve, given the right environment. So in this sense, a god, or "life force" or whatever you want to call it, may have in fact exist. (or not)

However....given the elegant nature of the Universe, from sub-atomic particles to, stars and galaxies and clusters of galaxies, the complexity and beauty of it all, I fail to see how anyone could consider that it all came from some arrogant, vain, vengeful, jealous and cruel being that sits on a throne in some imagined heaven, passing judgement on people and sending them to burn, screaming in agony FOREVER, throughout all eternity, simply for the crime of having been raise in a different faith. Wow. Talk about cruel and unusual punishment.... )

And the clay and rib theory is not even worth talking about. How utterly ridiculous.

It really scares me that so many people totally ignore science, yet blindly embrace myths and superstitions from primitive cultures. It's very scary indeed.

Steve,
I tend to agree with you, but your irrationality does not provide an argument for the rational. Stick to positive-premise provides positive-conclusion, not negative-conclusion implies negative-premise. It MAY be valid, but it tends to be more cloudy and doesn't help the argument.

Tony. My opinion, as I stated. Sorry, I tend to loose patience with the bible thumping croud.

Odd that our posts are similar. I wasn't responding to your post. I was probably writing it at the same time.

Since no one "in the know" has answered my question I will ask it again.
Which race of humans is the most evolved? Since we could not have all arrived at the same time, and to say so would suggest deity. Which race is closest to the apes?

Warren...
I believe the common agreement would be none... since our DNA is the same... humans as a specie are the same and have adapted (the way we look) based on environment... although some would say the closet relative might have been neanderthal... however his brain area was larger than ours which raises questions as to how we assign the order of human evolution... Considering that all humans (races) can produce young... we are the same... on the inside... much like a german shepard and a cocker spaniel are all K-9.

Warren. I did not expect you to post again. You were ignored as you are trying to inject something silly into a real conversation. I have enjoyed most of the other posts...

There is only one species of "human" left. The difference in the human races is similar to the differences in squirrels from east coast to those on the west coast. Some will have different color; some will be better at jumping; some will be better at problem solving; some will have better eye sight or a better sense of smell. This all has to do with the environment that they grew up in.

At the end of the day, they are all just squirrels.

Warren,
First off, humans ARE apes....great apes, just like chimps, gorillas, and orangutans.
Second of all, current theory holds that all homo sapiens descend from a small population after a mass extinction. (I recommend watching a rerun of the NOVA that aired this week). The genetic diversity of humans is considerably smaller than most other species, including chimps. So any 2 "non-related" people on Earth are more similar than any 2 "non-related" chimps in Africa. People on the African continent show a greater genetic diversity than other places on Earth because people who left Africa come from a smaller breeding population (more similar). There have been no other mass extinctions so people are still all much the same.

People have "evolved" minor trait differences, but nature has not selected any one group of people over another to change.

Exactly right Tony. The only differences between us and the other apes is that we have less hair, we have a large brain and we walk upright all the time. Other than that, we're pretty much the same.

You're correct about the lack of genetic diversity in humans as well. Recent DNA studies on a large sampling of people all over the world indicate that at sometime in history, (estimated about 75,000 years ago), there must have been catastrophe (probably a supervolcano) that killed all but a few hundred to a few thousand humans. We all descend from that small group.

Steve...
I'm interested in the DNA study you refer too.... link please

It's not letting me post links here for some reason...it's called the Toba Catastrophe Theory. Do a search on Google. There are lots of articles on it.

Thanks...

Hi again,

Good proofreading. Yes, a #2 is correct. (Attributing a typo to Sigismund Freud is rather harsh?) It should be:

1) Evolution- How species change over time
OR
2) Evolution- How life started here when the Earth was devoid
of any form of life.

What was your's answer?

The question #2 is not of complex forms of life of which the various species are part of. It is specific to the most basic (incredibly complex) forms of life molecular biologists study. (A teaspoon of dirt contains 10,000 different species of bacteria)

I (personally and simply) see the 'order in everything' as the fingerprint of God. It is simply everywhere.

The technical term 'chaos' (as in Chaos Theory) when used in describing the bronchial system, a tree branches, galaxy clusters .. etc. is now being mapped and analyzed using fractal geometry (design). You's will simply yell and stamp your feet and call me a Bible freak ( bty, the word bible simply means 'book', therefore the word Bible (Genesis to Revelation) with a capital 'B' differentiates it from all other books, or bibles. The same is true with god (money, someones belly, Vishnu, etc.) or God. or something else.

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down"- Darwin

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flagellum_base_diagram.svg

Please, don't be dogmatic..............

No god is necessary to explain complex lifeforms. There is a scientific principle that says, "energy passing through a system tends to organize that system." A good example of this is to take several pennies or other coins and put them in your hand and close it. Then shake them. If you shake them enough, they'll all line up. If you take a can of mixed nuts and shake it vigorously, all of the large nuts will come to the top (I love Brazil nuts so I know this works).

Energy – sunlight, heat and possibly lightning, interacting with the primordial soup of elements in the environment of the early Earth, could have organized molecules in such a way that very simple organisms formed spontaneously. I'm not saying this is what happened, I'm just saying it's possible, and it is one theory. Evolution perfectly explains the rest. More complex organisms evolved as conditions changed. If you know anything about evolution then you would know that the way it works it that when conditions change radically, only organisms that have mutations that help them survive the radical change will live. The rest will die.

A good example of this is the Japanese crab. For centuries, the Japanse fishermen have been catching these crabs. They have a random pattern of lines on their backs. Occasionally, the fishermen would find one in which the absolutely random pattern just HAPPENS to resemble a grimacing Samarai. Out of superstition, they would always throw them back. Now, after centuries of this, almost all of the crabs have this pattern. The ones that didn't, were killed and eaten.

That's a classic example of how evolution works. Not by some intelligent, supernatural being in the sky maniuplating them but by random mutations, where beneficial mutations are reinforced by the death of those that don't have them.

Over millions or billions of years, species have evolved into totally new species over and over again. It's simple, elegant, and requires no supernatural intervention from an invisible man in the sky.

As I stated before, the Judeo/Christian bible is simply old archaic myths, written thousands of years ago by members of a primitive culture. Some of it is fairly correct historically but it's shrouded in myth and superstition. All primitive cultures had creation myths. This is just one of many and no more accurate than any of the rest.

Evolution is so utterly obvious to anyone who takes the time to study it with an open mind. That as opposed to the first man being created out of dirt and the first woman out of his rib, as an afterthought....hmm...oh yeah, that makes a lot of sense... ) It's just an old myth with no basis whatever in reality.

That's not to say that I don't think it's POSSIBLE that some, life-force/great spirit/mother nature/Spinoza's god type of entity might exist. But I totally reject the Judeo/Christian myth, just as I reject all of the other archaic myths such as Islam, Bhuddism, Shintoism, etc. etc. etc. They're just old myths.

The scientific evidence is clear. Evolution is real. Whether there is some intelligent force behind it is debatable. But it is reality, that's just so utterly obvious.

So, which is more reasonable? Modern scientific evidence? Or millenia old myths and superstitions. The choice is very clear to me.

Sorry, another typo-

The technical term ‘chaos’ (as in Chaos Theory) when used in describing the bronchial system, a tree branches, galaxy clusters .. etc. is now being mapped and analyzed using fractal geometry (design). You’s will simply yell and stamp your feet and call me a Bible freak ( bty, the word bible simply means ‘book’, therefore the word Bible (Genesis to Revelation) with a capital ‘B’ differentiates it from all other books, or bibles. The same is true with god (money, someones belly, Vishnu, etc.) or God.:-) ) or something else.

(It's the closing ) after my happy face!)

I am not trying to inject religion into the discussion. I am simply trying to correct typo's of some people's previous posts to clarify acurate english spellings. I'm sure my grammar here is horrible!

As to my 'personal' belief, it's irrelavant to this:

There IS order in everything.

to everyone who says evolution is "fasifiable", i say PROVE IT!

No scientist has falsified it yet and it is the most tested theory in science. That leads many to think that it is much more than a theory or hypothesis at this point-it might as well be a LAW.

God created science? God created the big bang? Are you joking? Do you even know what the big bang theory is?

Creationism is not science and it is a travesty that people compare it to evolution, which is ACTUALLY BASED IN SCIENCE. I might as well believe that Spiderman is real.

can i also say that everyone on here that is discrediting modern science doesn't get it at all. if science is wrong, why do you take modern medicines? or have that awesome flat screen TV? why are you surfing the internet right now?

God didn't create those things, science did.

0h, and the guy that said "a day of evolution" is obviously one of those people who thinks the earth is only a few thousand years old.

nevermind all the proven scientific fact that debunks creationism, God must have created it all to test our rightous faith!

also, Christian Science is an oxymoron.

Chris...

There are notorious fakes in this area... which sets things back in my opinion... to argue otherwise is silly. I am not in anyway arguing againts evolution... just making a point that not all scientists are filled with integrity.

Piltdown Man
Nebraska Man
Orce Man
Haekel's drawings
Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis

These are just off the top of my head... there is big money/fame in getting published for findings... and pressure to find evidence to fit a theory. However I'll say it again... the evidence is massive supporting evolution... not saying there isn't at all... but fakes need to be ID'd as such to maintain good science.

Wisdom,

For clarification, you state:
"the evidence is massive supporting evolution…"

Do you mean evolution of "Life" from non-"Life"?
At this point I disagree emphatically.
There is NO evidence for this 'beginning of Life' whatsoever.

What of the 'language fo DNA' not to speak of DNA itself?

THE BAD NEWS: Scientifically speaking... You, I and all life on Earth are an impossibility... period. Our very existence breaks the most fundamental universal law of all that dictates that matter can neither be created nor destroyed. In other words, you cannot make something out of nothing.

THE GOOD NEWS: We do exist.

PROBLEM: Is this universal law flawed? Or is the creation of space, time, energy and matter (and life) only confined to this environment we call the natural world?

PONDER THIS: 1 second before this reality began... nothing could exist without time, space, energy and matter... including life. Scientist cannot and will never be able to explain where everything came from... why? Because for us to be here... space, time, energy and matter (S.T.E.M.) were had to have been created OUTSIDE of this reality.

PONDER THIS: 1 second after the creation of this natural world, everything needed... including every single, balanced, perfectly tuned universal law (gravity, radiation, light, water vapor, minerals...etc) needed to build a fully ready, fully functional universe, planets, stars and Earth's eco-system were "ready to go..." "just add water"

PONDER THIS: For life to succeed outside a lab or hospital (unaided) to survive in Earth's environment... it must be fully developed, mature, sexually compatible with a mate located close by... all at the same time to allow pro-creation to occur. If you dispute these basic tenants of nature... forget it. A partially evolved creature needs a sexually compatible mate evolving at the same rate... to procreate... and they have to be in the same locale, at the same time or... oops... extinction.
Now, compound this problem with billions of life forms of all shapes, sizes and environmental challenges... spread across a massive landscape... evolving independently? Talk about shooting a high stakes craps game here... good luck calculating the odds. Hint: They aren't too good...

Can life adapt? Sure it can... but that's adaptation...not evolution. Evolution is the changing of one lifeform into another. Evolution leaves a changing lifeform with many vulnerable "in-between" stages that are hostile to its survival. But... maybe that's where names like: turtle-doves, horse flies, sea horses and bird dogs came from? Where are these 2-in-1 silly creatures? Where are their bones, remains, DNA? Just one such find (male & female evolving in parallel) would turn creationism on it's ears!!!

However, it's Evolution that's finding itself on it's ears... all smoke and no fire. Until that event happens... Creation best fits history, logic and commonsense. God makes life... like space, time, energy and matter... all ready to go. Mature, not lacking anything. Fully developed and able to survive and thrive in it's new environment. No in-between stages. Male/Female of same species, fully sexually reproducible and staged in the same location & time so reproduction is possible. (Of course, there's asexual reproduction... convenient but not near as fun to discuss... *Yawn*)

BOTTOM LINE: I sure would like to know what Darwin was taking when he came up with all this evolution stuff. I mean, if there was just a shred of proof... anything concrete other than politicized bullying tactics against creationists to silence an alternative perspective... this particular once-staunch-evolutionist would reconsider his stance. But I turned to God for answers when Darwin & Carl Sagan utterly failed to provide even the most basic of answers to life. All they had were questions... those are a dime a dozen... cheap to manufacture.

I needed answers. Solid reason. Something that made sense. And God's way of making an universe and life made a lot more sense... and took a lot less faith to believe in... why? As humans, we do things the same way God did... we think, we design, we plan, we build... and we complete our work so it will function... as designed.

God just thought up everything first... that's all... -think about it.

Dan,
To clarify my lengthly discription of complexity:

I was not speaking of complex biology. I was speaking of complex systems. Steve described a perfect example in "shaking a handful of pennies." The complex system I was speaking of was that of basic protein replication. Although I call it basic, the system itself is quite complex.

To say "evoloution of 'Life' from non-'Life' " is missing the point. Viruses are an example of self-replicating proteins although the do not reside in cells like traditional "Life" as we know it. You're not asking a question of evolution, you're asking "how did 'Life" begin?"

JDHowes,
You're taking the philosopher's approach.

That's only good to a point. You need to study complex systems, modes of vibration, and also some biology. Also, geology and astrophysics show the age of the solar system and universe to be billions of years old. Radio-carbon decay and red-shift of light from distant galaxies....really, they all work to continue the refinement of the our knowledge as the science books explain it. There are just too many incorrect assumptions you're making.

When your premises are flawed, your conclusions will be flawed.

Dan....
I was speaking to the evidence of evolution as adaption... different evironments make animals change to be better suited in them... I think there is massive evidence of this. A Northern deer is larger to maintain homeostasis in a cold environment.

I have serious doubts about common ancestory and the beginning of life... some of the reasons mentioned by JDHowes above... and some because of what we know about cell division and the transcription of DNA via proteins... (which are needed for transcription... in other words you can't make a protein without trascription... and can't start transcription without a protein)... so on common ancestory and the "kick start" of life I have issue.

Wisdom and JDHowes,

As far as "adaptation"....that's NOT how the "theory" of evolution is described. Again, Steve's story ot the crabs explains this one quite well.

The pattern on the crabs started as random. From that point, the crabs most likely to reproduce were those with a specific type of pattern. It's this combination of many random mutations being throttled down to "promote" the types of mutation which are benefitial for continuity of life. So it's not an adaptation, it's a selection of those "best fit to survive."

Tony...
They were still crabs... which could mate with the other crabs... so they adapted to be "best fit to survive" I agree. The change occured due to environment which I agree with.

It actually depends on your definition of crabs.

Science breaks life forms down to a point where you have a group which is similar enough to reproduce. This is called a species. But in fact some species can inter-breed and produce offspring: mule, liger, tigon. The difference is that each species is still part of the same breeding population. Enough time passes and enough mutation occurs that a breeding population becomes too different than a different breeding population of a previous identical species. These two breeding populations then become different species and cannot reform into a single breeding population again.

I agree...
However... that "Common Ancestory" portion is what is lacking in evidence unlike the adaption of a species which I was agreeing with.
It should also be mentioned that a mule, liger or tigon cannot reproduce.

Also... I should say that one of the seven characteristics of life is the ability to adapt to your environment... variations of individules is common... and most likley healthy... much like Africans, Euopeans, Indians, etc....

Hence the term "breeding population"

Oh I understood what you said... that is the basis for evolutionary theory... however that jump to a new species is what's hard to find evidence of... and is really where many have their hang up.

As for Dan and the flagella:

plug this into your wikipedia: Evolution_of_flagella

Irreducible complexity is a made-up term. Like immaculate conception. Again, when you start with false premises, you achieve false conclusions. Understanding science isn't just about reading the words on the page, you have to interpret the complex concepts in a way you haven't thought before.

Wisdom-
It's not a "jump" to a new species. It's a progression. You have to consider it this way:

A person living today can breed with any other person living today. They could (theoretically) breed with anyone from 20,000 years ago. Meaning, they are genetically similar enough to produce fertile offspring. The person living today could breed with someone 50,000 years ago. Again, similar enough genetically. Now, that person from 50,000 years ago is genetically similar enough with someone 100,000 years ago to produce offspring. But, the person living today is not necessarily genetically similar enough to breed with someone 100,000 years ago.

The point is, scientist draw lines between species. But that's not the whole story.

Imagine 7 breeding populations of birds across a large land mass....say the US or Canada. Each population is genetically similar enough to breed with the population on either side of it. However, there is enough difference between the population of the East coast and the West coast that the two cannot reproduce. These are the subtle difference that take 1000s of generations. It doesn't really matter how scientists classify them.

Tony...
Again... I understand the concept... I really do... I do my best to keep an open mind. I should tell you that I'm not a creationist... not at all... however when I question evolution I often get labled that way.

Evolution has evolved quite a bit over the past hundred years... and my guess is it will continue to do so. As we learn more and more about DNA, reproduction, cells, etc... it will become clear. Some questions asked make sense to me... the math for instance is one. For "what I would guess" would be the number of bad mutations that would have to happen for each good one to survive you would think there would be millions of transition species fossils found. The rate that it would be happening would indicate a constant change occuring all around us. Changes with current living animals that have no fossil record that's thousands of years old.
If the majority of life had to re-start about 65 Million years ago after the great extinction and then today have 1.75 million seperate named species is amazing. The 1.75 is what are named... not counting micro organizms, bacteria, etc which makes the number between 5 and 30 million. Just given the 1.75 would be an average evolution of one new species every 37 years... that's about 6 new species that don't pre-date Darwin... and we can't find any.
I understand why man doesn't evolve and won't... we adapt our environment to ourselves so there is no reason for us to change... i.e... I don't get hairy cause I turn on the heat... (not trying to be funny). Evolution must have the ability to work fast (In the big picture I mean).
At any rate... things such as the above are why I sometimes ask... Why?. Again... I'm not at all against the idea... just awaiting more information. I also realize I may never get answers... but hey... that's why we keep asking questions.
PS: I think we will answer a lot of evolution question before we ever figure out what might have kick started life. That's an even tougher one. I do enjoy the topic... and try to learn what I can... but things do change fast... even biology has made huge strides since I attended college. Which was longer ago than I'd like to admite!

Oh... Tony
I just re-read my last post. Very rushed... and not very well written. I am sorry for that... spell check (or a lack of) has made my brain smaller I think

Wisdom-
I'm still not sure you get the adaptation part of it. It's not that you don't need hair because you can turn on the heat. It's that you can reproduce genetically similar offspring because you can turn on the heat.

To take your example (funny, but still serious): If you lived with someone who WAS hairy and you could no longer turn on the heat, the hairy one survives to produce hairy offspring and the non-hairy one dies off. At this point, random genetic mutations continue to occur in this race of hairy people. Some mutations will cause less hairy people, and these people will die before producing offspring, so the only ones that survive continue to have hair. These hairy people then move to Mexico, a much warmer climate. Similar RANDOM mutations occur in offspring, but this time, the offspring with the "less-hairy" mutation gene are the ones that survive to reproduce, and the "hairy" gene is the one that no longer is passed on.

So there really is no "adaptation" in the species. The SYSTEM has changed, so the offspring that live to the age of reproduction changes.

Another example: Birds of paradise have varoius colorful feathers. Exact patterns from one member of the species to another vary through random mutation. During their mating ritual, the female will select the one that it chooses to mate with. So the random mutations that occured are now selected as beneficial or not. The beneficial ones allow for offspring.

So it's this selective process, one that promotes a beneficial mutation to a non-beneficial mutation that causes evolution. An existing population doesn't really adapt. It's not just that one type of mutation IS beneficial, it's that all other types of mutation are NOT beneficial.

What if GOD is a scientist? What if we are a lab experiment? I always pondered that

Fascinating is the complexity from unknown quantum popcorn poppings
Do not understand radioactive decay; but for evolition we have a theory

The Allmighty Popcorn Popper adds salt and butter,
Then heat to pop Humans - you really have a popcorn's free will ?

The crab is still a crab, but it's not hard to imagine thousands of such changes over millions of years. Also keep in mind that when there are radical environmental changes, this causes a breeding population to undergo an enormous amount of stress, increasing the frequency of mutations. Causing evolution to speed up.

So you have thousands of changes over a few million years. To me, it's easy to imagine how a new species could arise.

Another example that I like is the California sea otter. In the past, these creatures, although adapted to a marine life, could get around pretty well on land too. But due to hunting and to fishermen killing them off because they feared they would eat too many shellfish and thus interfere with their livelihood, the remaining population is less able to get along on land. Only the ones who came on or near land were shot. Others, who spent most of their time at sea were not.

It has to do with their back feet/flippers. The ones that are left have a more evolved flipper/feet that aren't very good for walking around on land. They are following a similar evolutionary path as the seals, sea lions, walruses, dugongs and sea cows and will probably evolve eventually into something like whales or dolphins...but in millions of years.

Skinks are another good example. They're taking a similar evolutionary path to snakes. Some skinks look pretty much like regular lizards. Others are long with short legs. Others are really long with really short legs. Other members of the skink family are really long with only vistigial stubs for legs. And there are the legless skinks who have lost their legs altogether.

It's thought that snake evolved from burrowing lizards and when you're burrowing underground like an earthworm, legs only get in the way.

Pythons have vistigial back legs. Just two stubs sticking out. They evolved from lizard-like ancestors that had legs.

Evolution is clear and to me it's clear to see how species can change into other species over time. It takes a LOT of time and it's a very gradual process, they don't suddenly change overnight.

Some people who doubt evolution ask, "If apes evolved into humans, then why are there still apes?" That's because those species of apes didn't evolve into humans. They ones that did, are no longer around...they are us.

Tony... yea I got it.
Our discussion this week re-ignited my interest in the topic. I've been doing some research and am amazed how much is out there based off DNA studies. It's been years since I've really read up on the subject and am very impressed...

This is one of my favorite topics to discuss, and as soon as I saw the article title I knew there would be interesting comments flying all over the place. The problem is that most people are either evolutionists or they are creationists, and both choose to remain ignorant of the other sides arguments. So lets lay it down, there is no "proof" for either evolution or for creationism. Sure you can talk about about how similar two species are genetically or visibly. But this does not account for the the leaps and bounds between these species. How can one species evolve from from an organism with 16 chromosomes into an organism with 18 chromosomes without rendering itself unable to reproduce? There are basic laws of genetics that evolution can not explain. The only "evidence" for evolution that exists is how all genetic material is similar, and the observation of adaptions amongst species. We have NOT recorded these adaptions to the point of one species evolving into another however.

While there are flaws in the evolution theory, it is what I believe. This is because evolution may just be a theory, but creationism is an idea which has NO evidence to support it other than how no other theory can effectively explain the diversity of life on the Earth.

Until the theory of evolution can explain the basic issues of genetics, evolutionists can not claim they know the only real truth, and cannot put down the creationists. For all we know there is an all inclusive solution which we have not thought of yet. You never know what complexity or even simplicity the universe has in store.

Steve...
Evolution is clear and to me it’s clear to see how species can change into other species over time. It takes a LOT of time and it’s a very gradual process, they don’t suddenly change overnight.

The problem with the long gradual process is the fossil record doesn't stand up. Take a horse for instance... in growing longer legs or becoming a zebra or whatever... we should find millions of fossils that didn't become anything... short legs, partial hoofs, shorter snout, etc, etc,,, yet.... nothing but a complete horse or something totally different... the same can be said for all animals. Some of which "Coelacanth" are millions of years old and haven't changed at all. Granted the fossil record is far from complete... and much more remains to be found... but you would think as much as we've looked we would have thousands already... I find that interesting.

People don't understand how EXTREMELY rare fossils are. Conditions have to be just right and those conditions are really rare in nature. I forget the figure but it's only a teeny tiny percentage of animals get fossilized. But there are fossils of "in between" species, whales for instance, there are quite a few. Othere species too. I think if you look a little further, you can find references to them on the Internet. There are a lot. But you don't really need to look at the fossil record to see intermediate species. The skinks I mentioned for example, reread my post on them.

I also think that you can look at marine mammals in general. If you look at river otters, they have adapted to an aquatic life but they can still get around on land quite well. Sea otters have gone a little further, they are more adapted to an aquatic life than river otters and don't get around very well on land. Seals, sea lions and walruses have gone a step further, dugongs, sea cows and manatees have adapted even further and whales have gone the complete route to a fully aquatic life, although they are probably still evolving too.

Each of these species seem to be at a different intermediate phase between a land animal and a fully aquatic animal.

But as for fossils, there are several examples of archeopterix and related fossils that are intermediate steps between dinosaurs and birds. All you have to do is look, the fossils are there. They are rare but not THAT rare, there are plenty of intermediate fossils.

But again, you don't need fossils. Darwin based his ideas on animals and plants that he saw on his trip, not on fossils.

Steve...
Darwin also said his thoery would be proven right or wrong by the fossil record.

Also, as far as the caelecanth you mentioned. When an animal or plant reaches a point where it's fully adapted to it's environment and that environment doesn't change, the animal or plant doesn't change either. The crocodillians are a good example of that. They haven't changed in millions of years, they don't need to, they're fully adapted to the ecological niche that they fill.

Also, some people say, ok, I see your point about marine mammals, but why aren't there hundreds or thousands of in-betweens, examples of every single step along the way? Evolution doesn't work like that. Each species evolves at it's own pace and in it's own way. A river otter will not go through the exact same evolutionary steps that a sea cow did, nor even a sea otter, similar maybe, but not the same. Each takes a separate, individual route. We're seeing species that are in transition, each marine mammal at a different stage, but they will not all follow those exact same stages. They will probably follow somewhat similar stages, but not exact.

I don't think Darwin realized how rare fossil records are. But as I said, there are plenty of examples of in-between species.

Hope this link shows up...this site talks about transitional species and give several examples.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html

You may have to copy and paste it into your browser.

I'll check it out... and thanks...

In ancient times, all kinds of combinations of species
such as the now extinct Minotaur
Nowdays we are scientific designers, with artificial genes

Steve...
You are right about many things. But genetically speaking I dont see how a true transition species is possible. There are major leaps in evolution that can not even be explained by these transition species. Yes I know that the fossil record is incomplete, and i know that it is thought that only one in 10,000 species have been fossilized. But how is it possible for a new chromosome to appear in new species spontaneously?

There are genetic similarities that are essential for offspring to have reproductively viable offspring. It is this ability to reproduce that defines groups as a species. Where is the transition? There is no way that we know of to change the number of chromosomes. Even the so called transition species cannot account for the genetic issues that we face with evolution.

Also, do not confuse adaption with evolution. While adaption may lead to evolution, true evolution has not been observed, only adaption has. I agree with many things when it comes to evolution, but you cannot say that it is fact, because it is far from it.

As an Ecologist/Evolutionary Biologist in college, I must say I would love to be the one to "disprove" Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. The truth is, all of the experimental and observational evidence worked out since then supports Darwin's ideas. When Mendel's work (a religious man and a monk) was united with Darwin's we finally had the mechanism of change understood.
What an amazing time we live in, when we can map the building blocks of species and follow micro-evolutionary changes in genotypes which translate into phenotypic changes over generations! Evolution is a factual natural mechanism, with further understanding I'm certain it will become a Law, much like gravity.

For those of you battling over "Creationism" and ID, I'm sorry but there isn't much of a scientific base to those ideas. It doesn't matter that you wish there were, the simple truth is they are not ideas based from the scientific method. They have not been tested using unbiased experimentation and cannot in good conscience be considered scientific in origin. Hopefully these rambling thoughts don't offend anyone, injecting religion into science and vice versa should be avoided.

The evildence is clear for Satanic designs
All kinds of pests torturing US, lice, ticks, mosquitoes, muslims
But the Devils let US live, to torture US more, and endlessly more
God is so intelligent, but sleeping on the job, till Satan throws Him a flea

Actually, Kevin, there are mutations which create extra chromosomes. Down Syndrome is one such mutation in humans. If I were a biologist, I'm sure I could name a whole bunch. But as people that DON'T study everything there is to know about biology, we TRUST (not "believe") what the scientific community determines about the natural world.

No one ever saw the Grand Canyon form, but we know how. We didn't see South America separate from Africa, but plate tectonics is pretty clear on the issue.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but scientific claims typically go through a peer review where 2 independent groups will have to verify the original's claim.

ha ha wow shadow, thanks for the english lesson. I think you spoke for us all. How absolutely intolerable. I don't even understand the story at all, simply because of that error.

Good eyes. Now if only you could put it towards something useful...

Species change doesn't happen all at once. It's a very gradual process. Tiny changes over hundreds of thousands of years. There is not point at which you can say, okay this is a new species. All species are in transition all of the time, with few exceptions.

I would like for someone who doesn't believe in evolution to tell me what alteranative they would propose....magical poofing of life by an invisible, supernatural being in the sky? )

Amazing. Some guy actually compares muslims to lice as part of God's punishment. Just when I think things can't get worse. For me, I don't see where being conservative means you can't support evolution. No reason to say that evolution isn't the means that God selected for his purposes. It isn't either/or to some of us.

For those on the far right: quoting blind scripture doesn't help address the argument. The Bible isn't literal (well, for most) and if it is, there are a lot of others that need explaining. You don't endear yourself to intelligent conversaton when you appear incapable of independent thought. In any case, support for science is not 'worhip'.

But for some of the evolution-supporters on this comment list: shame on your for resorting to personal attacks. That is no better than the blind, unintelligent scripture. At least you have logic and science behind you: you can do better. The creationists have nothing else to use.

Sigh: this is one of those posts that probably won't result in anything useful being taken from it.

Steve: "Species change doesn’t happen all at once. It’s a very gradual process. Tiny changes over hundreds of thousands of years. There is not point at which you can say, okay this is a new species. All species are in transition all of the time, with few exceptions."

I would think it is faster than tiny chages over hundreds of thousands of years... considering Homo Erectus was 200K ago... Cro-Magnon was as little at 30K ago... so significant changes surely must take place in shorter time spans.

You're probably right. And given times of stress, such as a radical climate change, mutations are more frequent and evolution speeds up. Actually, I thought Cro-Magnon was around 100,000 years ago. And I didn't think he was all that different from Homo Erectus....But I might be mistaken. Too lazy to look it up too..... )

I glanced... but could have been a bit quick as well.

When we find the mechanism for DNA change we will know more. We just aren't there yet... DNA has several safy valves to keep it from mutating which is a problem... that and what can add or delete information without killing the offspring is another problem... however it should be noted that 30 years ago we didn't know much about DNA... and I expect in 20 more years we will look back at how little we know now... but that's how we move forward.

And thanks for the links before... I've been getting into some of them and find it interesting... better than watching the idiot box for sure... HA...

tony..

While you are right about certain diseases being caused by the addition or subraction of a chromosome, the new additional chromosome still has the same genes as the one it was mutated from. When you talk about down syndrome, there is an over expression of protien because of the addition of the chromosome.

This aneuploidy of chromosomes does not explain the change from a chromosome to a completly unique chromosome. There is evidence that this drastic change from a chromosome to a unique chromosome can not exist. For example certain species of plants can be diploid, triploid, tetraploid, even up to octoploid. But there is no difference between these chromosomes, they are just 8 identical chromosomes existing in the plant.

Also when it comes to plate tectonics and the grand canyon, those are considered fact because we can observe the changes in real time. We know they are true because precise measurements can be taken. We can measure mountains rise, and and the distance continents move. With evolution, there is no observed evidence of evolution (other than physical similarities) there is only evidence of adaption, not actual species differentiation.

Kevin,

Certainly you are not fool enough to think the claims made by scientists are that a large breeding population of a 16 chromosomed species spontaneously produces the a new large breeding population of a 17 chromosomed species within one generation. This is not the claim. Once a new chromosome is introduced to a species (through spontaneous mutations which HAVE been observed), even if identical to another, mutations will occur separately in these chromosomes, cause them to diverge in similarity. An additional chromosome alone does not render an individual sterile within its parents' species (since, according to you, this individual is no longer in the same species).

Genetic similarity allows two individual organisms to produce offspring. You're caught up on an individual organism being classified as "this" species or "that" species. The fact of the matter is that a given BREEDING POPULATION (a group of organisms) as a WHOLE can breed with each other and create offspring.

Dogs are classified as a subspecies of the gray wolf. People have selectively bred dogs from wolves for thousands of years and they are now classified as a subspecies. What this means is that there is enough genetic variation between the wolf and the domesticated dog (a direct descendant of the wolf) that although they can still interbreed, their breeding populations have been separated for thousands of years. So, keep notes and in another 50,000 to 100,000 years when the dog is no longer the same species as the wolf, you'll be able to justify the speciesation of life on Earth.

And just because these so called "scientists" claim to "observe the changes in real time," doesn't mean that South America and Africa were ever joined as one land mass. I mean, when did this one land mass become two? Huh? How could that have happened? Certainly it was some type of supernatural force.

We have yet to understand why mass has gravity. We don't fully understand the wave-particle duality of light. What do we make of the claims of scientists on these topics? Do you choose to deny these sciences as well? What about medicine? Do you not take a prescription because you don't trust the science behind medical research? Perhaps a superbeing pities these scientists and spontaneously cures people that take their prescriptions to pacify science as a whole.

tony,
first off, i do not deny the claims of evolution. I believe in the process myself. I was tired of everyone ragging on the creationists though because evolution is NOT an observable fact. You brought up the example of the wolf and the dog, and you called the dog a SUB species. These are not two sepearate species, they have the capability to reproduce with each other still, we do not know if they will permanently sepearate into two separate into two different species. If we can keep taking notes and the dog does become its own species, THEN we can make the claim that evolution is a fact. But until we have the observations, we do not have the support. This is why evolution is a THEORY.

I understand how it is possible to introduce a new chromosome but once that new chromosome is introduced the organism would be almost immediately selected against because of the upset balance in protein. Plants and animals have a set number of chromosomes for a reason, and and change in this number causes a number of problems.

For example: If a non disjunction occurs during meiosis I, You suddenly have only two cells with the proper number of chromosomes, If there is a trisomy, none of the cells from the offspring will have the proper number chromosomes, and severely upsetting the amount of proteins made. and almost definitely making the organism be selected against. so this new organism would not even be able to introduce its new genotype into the population.

Also the final two paragraphs of your post make no sense at all, we can MEASURE the distances that land masses move and map the vectors they are traveling on. We know plate tectonics exists because of mountain ranges, ocean rifts, and earthquakes. These are measurable forces. With gravity and light, we measured the forces and we KNOW they exist, we just cant explain the how or why. But when evolution is concerned you are trying to explain the how, when there is no evidence.

There is profound evidence for the adaption of a species through natural selection, but there is no evidence to support the fact that one species derived from another. The sciences are my field, and I have been chewed out for trying to draw conclusions without the support of proper evidence. Evolution is accepted in today's world simply because we have no other way to explain it. I am not a creationist, and i am not entirely and evolutionist (because there are unexplainable flaws) I am a geneticist and I look at the evidence given and try to draw conclusions from that.

I am not saying evolution is wrong, merely saying that it might not be entirely correct.

I suppose you missed the sarcasm in the second to last paragraph of my previous post....

If you go back, I never claimed evolution to be a fact. Actually, I made the argument that it would likely only ever exist as a theory.

The Big Bang is also conjecture. The current state of the universe is such that it appears to be expanding. The implication there is that the universe would have been smaller in the past. Also, we have yet to witness a solar system form, but can make educated guesses on their formation. The most likely being that at some point in the past the solar system was a cloud of spinning dust versus the more ordered large-mass planets we have now.

Anyway, my original problem was with you short-sighted view of what constitutes a "species." To bring up the dog-wolf comparison again: take the donkey and the horse (or any two of the "big cats"). These species' breeding populations have been separated longer than the dog and wolf breeding populations. They are now at the point where they can produce offspring, but their offspring is sterile. So the lines between species is generally put here. But since the dog and wolf breeding populations can still be re-joined, a hard line cannot be drawn. And the question will become, "when can this line be drawn?" Since the genetic makeup of each individual will be different, it is likely that some individuals will be able to interbreed when other individuals will not.

Pluto was reclassified as a dwarf planet. Just because scientists want to classify things doesn't mean these classifications are perfect.

Kevin, if you don't believe that species can change then what DO you believe? Do you subscribe to the theory that an invisible, supernatural being in the sky "poofed" everyting into existence as-is?

Species change. That's been proven over and over. Archeopterix is a good example, a birdlike dinosaur with feathers. They've found a lot of them now...in different stages of evolution, it's just so obvious. No you won't see one species magically change into another in your lifetime or even several lifetimes, but a few hundred thousand to a few million years? Of course. The skinks that I mentioned before, you can actually see them in the process of changeing from a lizard to a snake-like species. Depending on which species of skink you look at, you can see different stages along the way. A snake is not a lizard and can't breed with a lizard but it evolved from a lizard. It's ancestors had legs at one time.

I understand what both of you are saying, and not once did I say that I did not believe in evolution. But you are missing my point. Oh and thank you tony, I forgot who I was originally complaining about. (also I was hoping you would not bring up the horse and the donkey, that occured to me too.)
Its not the evolution does not exist, its that the theory does not hold up completely. There is too much that can still not be explained by evolution. Until there is evidence that evolution (not just adaption) can take place on the genetic level, people have no right to trash those who decide to believe something else.
No steve I do not believe a supernatural being poofed creatures into existence, but honestly, if I did, what right would you have to try and destroy my faith? See? this is what I'm talking about. Since you dont see any other way that organisms could have come into existance, you attack other peoples beliefs.
So what I was doing was pointing out the holes in your own narrow minded assault. There is too much we do not know. I point out that there is no genetic possibility for evolution to occur, and you throw physically similar (but not genetically similar) animals at my feet. When you look at skinks, yes they may be losing limbs, but do you know what it takes genetically for that kind of change? The suppression (not the removal) of maybe four genes, during the embryonic stage. That is well within normal genetic diversity of any animal. All that has been proven is species similarities, not species change.

Im not trying to be rude, and I dont have the alternative answer.. but the theory of evolution, from the information we have today, does not work. Might we get new information later on? Yes. but not now.

Oh sorry tony, I didn't finish my thought on the horse and the donkey. The horse and the donkey are two different species. The requirements that make organisms belong to a certain species is that they are able to produce offspring which can reproduce as well.
I was thinking this one over and I will have to get back to you . The only good non-evolutionary argument I can come up with is very creationist... and i cant quite stomach that radical of a viewpoint,

Kevin,
You stated that the evolutionists and creationists are "ignorant of the other side's arguments." Simply put, creationists have NO scientific basis for their arguments. They build their case on false premeses and draw false conclusions. Evolutionists use science to build their case. Fortunately they also allow their claims to change as the science changes.

This is typically where the discussion is. The problem being that creationists want creationism taught in science classes as being rooted in science when their claims are actually rooted in a dogmatic religion with no proof or even a shadow of evidence. Evolution DOES have a shadow of evidence, even if not fully understood.

Evolutionists are NOT ignorant of the creationists' arguments. In fact, their arguments have been debunked. Creationists are, however, blind to the evolutionists' arguments.

One last note on irreducible complexity: no matter how complex the creation made by an intelligent designer, a simpler creation CAN be shown to exist in that design. So even if a "god" created a very complex design, he COULD create one less complex. Ergo, irreducible complexity doesn't exist.

Now we fall into the inner complexities of creationism and evolution. Most creationists do not believe that everything poofed into existance as it is. Most believe that micro evolution occurs (intraspecies) but on a grand scale it does not. Even as an evolutionist, and knowing the how its possible for a single cell to become a complex organism, I find it hard to believe that even in the 3.9 billion years of evolution, that everything originated from a single cell organism.

Most creationists will meet about half way... though, the few that we got on this blog were extremely radical. I have to admit though, I dont really understand your argument concerning irreducible complexity. Can you expand on that one. Im not sure what your saying.. sorry.

Here we go, I knew I came across this before:

The Larus genus of birds. They create something called a "ring species" where various neighboring breeding populations can interbreed, but non-neighboring breeding populations CANNOT. Look into this and you will understand that the term "species" is ill-defined.

Irreducible complexity claims that certain structures in the cell are "irreducibly complex." First off, all examples by creationists have already been debunked.

My point was this. It is IMPOSSIBLE for a design to be irreducilby complex. No matter how intelligent the designer is, any aspect of a complex design can be reduced to a more simple one. So the notion that irreducible complexity exists is fundamentally unsound.

As an example, come up with the most complex design imaginable. Then simplify one aspect. All designs, all of statics and mechanics can be reduced into simple forms.

Another ring species is the Greenish Warbler, which it looks like is a more interesting study.

Oh, yea irreducible complexity doesn't make since, every complex organ we have, has a simpler form in many other organisms.

I do admit though, the arguments for creationism are all made though the flaws of evolution, and I dont know of any arguments that have evidence of their own to support creationism. So I must concede

We don't know all of the details of evolution. But it does happen on the genetic and molecular level. You haven't studied it enough Kevin. There is plenty of evidence and good explanations of the process. You've fallen into the trap that creationists fall into (not saying you're a creationist, just that you've fallen into a similar line of thinking). You haven't examined all of the evidence so you jump to conclusions that are not valid.

Evolution is just so utterly obvious. And species change on ANY level, macro, micro, genetic, chromosomal, molecular, or whatever is quite obvious as well. The evidence is there. Sorry I don't have links right at hand but a little searching will produce plenty of results

The scientific community overwhelmingly supports evolutionary theory. Only a tiny minority question it's most basic tenets. There are some very minor details of how evolution occurs that are still debated but they are trivial. The basic concept isn't questioned by scientists. A few crackpots who don't even have degrees in any scientific field try to proclaim all kinds of nonsense. They're just creationists and ID'ers although some don't like to admit it. Of course none of them have any credible alternative except for: "God did it".

So forgive me if I question your motives Kevin. You seemingly are questioning the validity of well over a century of research by thousands of scientists with high IQ's and advanced degrees in science. I'm sorry but maybe you can see how that looks to some people. I don't say people shouldn't question things, but evolution is a well established and well documented science. I don't think all those thousands and thousands of scientists just made it all up or that they're stupid.

Oh, yeah. I forgot.

The article for this blog with ~113 posts:

The celebration birthday party for DARWIN!

Bring out the party hats and b.cake with candles for our High Schoolers!

Ostracize and shame (as a stupid creationist, whether that is acurate or not) any who do not join in!

This reminds me of some very bad times (Germany AND U.S.) back in the 1930's and 40's.

Steve? your turn....

Actually, Dan, you chose to chime in and ridicule before any of the evolutionists.

How does this remind you of Germany and the US?

I aggre with Jason