Creationism Alive and Well, but Still No Predictions

[Tenspace]

I've been perusing various creationsist websites (hey, I was bored). The one thing that is missing from Creationism is Prediction.

Any naysayers of evolution or YECs care to fill me in? What predictions are made by Creationism? Where can applied creationism be used in our daily lives?

Here's a couple of links for Creation websites. Leave your logic at the door, though, because if you don't believe in a literal six-day creation, then you're just an evilutionist. :)

Young Earth Creationist Headquarters (http://yecheadquarters.org)
This is where you can learn great things about God's work, and how much Satan hates One Truth Websites:
The next day I went to work. Unknown to me Satan had a plan for what I had done (put up the web site and post the sinner's prayer) to try and scare me into taking down some things from my website. While driving to work it started storming really bad. Lightening was striking all around me while I was driving. I had never seen so many strikes that were so close to my car before. One was about ten feet in front of me which blinded me with it's light. Another struck a telephone pole which sent sparks flying all over my car.

Evolution Fairy Tale (http://www.evolutionfairytale.com/)
Someone spent a lot of time creating amazing graphical illustrations of how if Darwin was right, giraffes' heads would blow up from too much blood pressure, and that wolves evolved into whales. Good stuff.
Molecules-to-man evolution is the type of evolution that my web site seeks to portray as a "fairy tale for grownups". It is unobservable, untestable, and has little, if any, evidence to support it. At best it should be labeled a low-grade hypothesis. Unfortunately, evolutionists continue to invoke microevolution and speciation as "evidence" that large-scale, molecules-to-man evolution is true. This is an invalid extrapolation, and is very misleading to the public. It is apparent that due to the lack of any real, tangible evidence for large-scale evolution, evolutionists have sought to create the illusion that evolution is true by reshaping and blurring the meaning of the word evolution

I'll ask again: Creationists, where are the predictions of your theory?

Tenspace

[snap crafter]

gotta love it when christians say something to the affect of 'science isn't backed by... science'.

[Mog]

The next day I went to work. Unknown to me Satan had a plan for what I had done (put up the web site and post the sinner's prayer) to try and scare me into taking down some things from my website. While driving to work it started storming really bad. Lightening was striking all around me while I was driving. I had never seen so many strikes that were so close to my car before. One was about ten feet in front of me which blinded me with it's light. Another struck a telephone pole which sent sparks flying all over my car.
Aren't lightning strikes usually associated with God, not Satan? May God strike me down if I'm wrong! :lol:

[Tenspace]

The next day I went to work. Unknown to me Satan had a plan for what I had done (put up the web site and post the sinner's prayer) to try and scare me into taking down some things from my website. While driving to work it started storming really bad. Lightening was striking all around me while I was driving. I had never seen so many strikes that were so close to my car before. One was about ten feet in front of me which blinded me with it's light. Another struck a telephone pole which sent sparks flying all over my car.
Aren't lightning strikes usually associated with God, not Satan? May God strike me down if I'm wrong! :lol:
He actually mentioned that in his article. :)

Ten

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Why does science, through the evolution theory, say that the earth is over 4 billion years old?

Science can only rely on what they can see or the evidence they find. They cannot test for God, nor can they test eternity (the realm God lives in). So as for what God has done they cannot test for sure. But they are willing to comment that it took 4.5 billion years and not six days. Funny that they would claim this when the other is not testable. To comment on something that is not testable, and act as you know for sure, is not scientific. It's like saying the sky is blue when your blind.
Oh, come on! This guy has obviously not done his research..............the way he'd have you believe, scientists just pulled that 4.5 billion number out of their collective asses!

I will say this, though--creationists have some pretty good web designers!

After bringing up the creationist view of Earth's diminishing magnetic field......

Here is an example of what is claimed by science: Talk origins This goes into just about everything that science says about this subject. Don't really see a need to list more links. Believe me, you'll have headache after reading it.
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

[SLINKY]

The morons over at YEC have a no-post forum because they don't like trolls. So what do they do? They set up forums where they do their own trolling on their own site. Actually, it's the administrator who did this. Then he proceeds to explain what trolls are and how to vanquish them.

He has way too much time on his hands.

What a bunch of fcktards. :lol:

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

The morons over at YEC have a no-post forum because they don't like trolls. So what do they do? They set up forums where they do their own trolling on their own site. Actually, it's the administrator who did this. Then he proceeds to explain what trolls are and how to vanquish them.

He has way too much time on his hands.

What a bunch of fcktards. :lol:
Hahahahahahahahaha! You're right! Almost every post is by the admin! :lol::lol::lol:

I wonder if he enjoys talking to himself in real life, too?

[SLINKY]

The morons over at YEC have a no-post forum because they don't like trolls. So what do they do? They set up forums where they do their own trolling on their own site. Actually, it's the administrator who did this. Then he proceeds to explain what trolls are and how to vanquish them.

He has way too much time on his hands.

What a bunch of fcktards. :lol:
Hahahahahahahahaha! You're right! Almost every post is by the admin! :lol::lol::lol:

I wonder if he enjoys talking to himself in real life, too?
Sure he does, but he calls it praying. :P

I do believe that all the posts are by him. The whole forum is closed to posting because he doesnt like "cuss" words and he's afraid of hackers.

[Tenspace]

The Fairytale site has a great forum. I've only seen one Atheist/Agnostic whose status isn't Banned. I think I'll go over and ask them about predictions.

Tenspace

[ghoulslime]

A Prayer of protection for his website? You have got to be shitting me!

Dear heavenly Father, I stand before YOU Lord in all my imperfections, and humbly stand before YOU in all YOUR holiness and ask in Jesus name for this God given ministry to prosper in glorifying YOU Father. In Jesus name I ask that a hedge of protection be placed around this ministry as it grows in bringing lost souls to YOUR love, forgiveness, and Truth of YOUR Word Lord, and the greatest gift of all....YOUR blessed life of salvation. Lord I ask in Jesus name for YOUR wisdom to fall upon Issac and YOU give him the wisdom to use it wisely, yet be gentle as a dove. I ask that YOU sharpen his sword against the enemy, and that YOU keep Issac alert to his motives to destroy everything that gives YOU glory and honor. I ask that Father YOU continue to keep YOUR hand of protection upon him as he walks in YOUR will to be done. Bless him Lord in his obedience to YOU, and YOU alone. Lead him and guide him in all that he does, so that he may glorify YOUR name for all to see. Let this site be a place of refuge for the lost, and sanctuary for YOUR children in need of spiritual food. Bless all those who visit this site, and bless all seeds that are planted and let them be watered by the living waters, and take root for YOUR glory Father. I humbly stand before YOU Father in faith, and ask in Jesus name all that I've prayed for.....Amen.


Looks like Semantec and Norton are going to be going out of business.

Dear God, please keep the spyware to a minimum, keep the Trojans at bay, clear my registry of all manner of evil, and flush my browser cache on a regular basis.

“Let this site be a place of refuge for the lost.” - It seems like part of his prayer has already come true.

[ghoulslime]

Trolls can't stand the word of god! Ahahahahahahahahahaha!

Did you see his pathetic forum - the "no post" forum? Ahahahahahahaha!

Got Trolls? We have the solution! Don Quixote to the rescue!

You can just feel the sense of empowerment the little bitch gets out of making a site and banning Atheists from it.

You can't come in MY tree house! There are no girls allowed! Nana nana nana!

[SLINKY]

Trolls can't stand the word of god! Ahahahahahahahahahaha!

Did you see his pathetic forum - the "no post" forum? Ahahahahahahaha!

Got Trolls? We have the solution! Don Quixote to the rescue!

You can just feel the sense of empowerment the little bitch gets out of making a site and banning Atheists from it.

You can't come in MY tree house! There are no girls allowed! Nana nana nana!
He didn't just ban atheists. He banned everyone. No one can post there except him. Who in his/her right mind would sign up for such stupidity... *oops* We need an embarrassed smiley.

[Tenspace]

Their Registration page says, "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law."

How can you discuss evolution without discussing sex? The whole subject is sexually oriented. :D:D:D

Ten

[SLINKY]

Their Registration page says, "You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this bulletin board to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law."

How can you discuss evolution without discussing sex? The whole subject is sexually oriented. :D:D:D

Ten
I'm not great at placing individual quotes between comments so...

false = creationism
defamatory = comments about GLTG/atheists
inaccurate = the bible
abusive = comments about GLTG/atheists
hateful = see above
obscene/profane = fuck that
threatening = abortion clinics/hospices (especially in Florida)
invasive of a person's privacy = see above

And what Tenspace said about sex.

They do that shit all the time. :rolleyes:

I'll bet he looks a lot like Jerry Fallwell.

[Tenspace]

Oh. My. God. :)

While surfing the web, I found this interesting write up on light. It sounded very good without a whole bunch of scientific explaination.
http://www.setterfield.org/other.htm#speed

And after reading this, I think I know why God used His voice commandment creation to change the speed of light so it could reach the earth. Because He was using the frequency of His voice to make it so.

God changes the speed of light with his voice. Wow. Speechless.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Oh. My. God. :)

While surfing the web, I found this interesting write up on light. It sounded very good without a whole bunch of scientific explaination.
http://www.setterfield.org/other.htm#speed

And after reading this, I think I know why God used His voice commandment creation to change the speed of light so it could reach the earth. Because He was using the frequency of His voice to make it so.

God changes the speed of light with his voice. Wow. Speechless.
Well, in answer to your original question, all we have to do is get God in a lab and ask Him to change the speed of light with the frequency of His voice. :lol:

[whoneedscience]

Maybe Ghoulslime could come up with a prayer for us.

And while he's at it, give me my prize for 100 posts :)

[Tenspace]

Maybe Ghoulslime could come up with a prayer for us.

And while he's at it, give me my prize for 100 posts :)
Not sure if you want it. Ghoulslime, what's the prize for a hundred posts?

[ghoulslime]

Maybe Ghoulslime could come up with a prayer for us.

And while he's at it, give me my prize for 100 posts :)
Not sure if you want it. Ghoulslime, what's the prize for a hundred posts?
I hereby award this prize to whoneedscience for a remarkable 100 posts.

PLEASE CLICK HERE:

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/binkyPoo.gif

:D

[whoneedscience]

Wow

[Bighead]

that was just fuckin GREAT

[SLINKY]

Great shit, Ghoul.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Check this out!

http://www.kent-hovind.com/

At least the ID people are subtle. Kent Hovind, on the other hand, believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that humans hunted dinosaurs to extinction.

[SLINKY]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Check this out!

http://www.kent-hovind.com/

At least the ID people are subtle. Kent Hovind, on the other hand, believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that humans hunted dinosaurs to extinction.
I've read that before and not just from this flake. That's the result of homeschooling and religious school education.

[Tenspace]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Check this out!

http://www.kent-hovind.com/

At least the ID people are subtle. Kent Hovind, on the other hand, believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that humans hunted dinosaurs to extinction.
Ah, good ol' Dr. Dino. I've never seen that site. Kent's real site is even funnier. Check out http://drdino.com - Kent's a Young Earth Creationist who believes that man and dinos played together. He has a Dinosaur "museum" (which is about an hour from me): http://www.dinosauradventureland.com.

Crazy shit. :)

Tenspace

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Check this out!

http://www.kent-hovind.com/

At least the ID people are subtle. Kent Hovind, on the other hand, believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that humans hunted dinosaurs to extinction.
Ah, good ol' Dr. Dino. I've never seen that site. Kent's real site is even funnier. Check out http://drdino.com - Kent's a Young Earth Creationist who believes that man and dinos played together. He has a Dinosaur "museum" (which is about an hour from me): http://www.dinosauradventureland.com.

Crazy shit. :)

Tenspace
Apparently he also believes that sonar is in the electromagentic spectrum and that TVs can be used to spy on us (that is, they go both ways).

Oh, and this howler:

This of course is assuming that light can be effected [sic] by gravity.
That's from March 2002.

And this one from 2004:

I don't think you could demonstrate bugs are alive!

[ghoulslime]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Check this out!

http://www.kent-hovind.com/

At least the ID people are subtle. Kent Hovind, on the other hand, believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that humans hunted dinosaurs to extinction.
Ah, good ol' Dr. Dino. I've never seen that site. Kent's real site is even funnier. Check out http://drdino.com - Kent's a Young Earth Creationist who believes that man and dinos played together. He has a Dinosaur "museum" (which is about an hour from me): http://www.dinosauradventureland.com.

Crazy shit. :)

Tenspace
Jesus Brontosaurus-Screwing Christ! These dinosaur adventureland people are completely wacked out. They seem to think that if you pretend hard enough all your dreams will come true. I took the liberty of downloading one of their fine "Evolution is dead" wall papers, and made a few minor changes to it. I sent them a copy, with a nice email suggesting that they offer it as well on their website.

:D

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/darwin.gif

[Tenspace]

That's fucking hilarious, Ghoulslime...

I suggest that if, and when, we hold our first RA get-together, we hold it at Dinosaur Adventure Land. Woo hoo! :D

Ten

[ghoulslime]

I found this display in his introduction to dinosaur land:

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/grand.gif

That river didn't make that Grand Canyon!

Biblical answer to the Grand Canyon.

Ahahahahahahahaha!

Is this the canyon between your mother's legs?

Fuck you, Christians! You are such mentally retarded wipers of other people's asses! I shit in your general direction!

:lol:

[ghoulslime]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Check this out!

http://www.kent-hovind.com/

At least the ID people are subtle. Kent Hovind, on the other hand, believes that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that humans hunted dinosaurs to extinction.
Ah, good ol' Dr. Dino. I've never seen that site. Kent's real site is even funnier. Check out http://drdino.com - Kent's a Young Earth Creationist who believes that man and dinos played together. He has a Dinosaur "museum" (which is about an hour from me): http://www.dinosauradventureland.com.

Crazy shit. :)

Tenspace
Jesus Brontosaurus-Screwing Christ! These dinosaur adventureland people are completely wacked out. They seem to think that if you pretend hard enough all your dreams will come true. I took the liberty of downloading one of their fine "Evolution is dead" wall papers, and made a few minor changes to it. I sent them a copy, with a nice email suggesting that they offer it as well on their website.

:D

http://ravingatheist.com/forum/img/uploads/darwin.gif
I got my reply from dinosaur man today:


Thanks for the email, I would love to post your wallpaper, however, there are
a few bad words in it. If you make the changes we could put it up. There is
also some negative imagery located between the fishes back legs. I like your
website too! http://poetryring.com/
Sincerely,
Heath Reed

[Tenspace]

Well, I posted my question over at the Evo Fairytale website. I was courteous. I asked nicely. But I didn't get an answer. Silence. The only reply was by another atheist regarding my Mayr query. Now that I think about it, I might've been banned, because I can no longer read any messages there. Maybe it's just a technical issue. :)

Here's my evil post:

I'm new here, just jumping in.


QUOTE(John Paul @ Jun 10 2005, 10:20 PM)
But simple mathematics has falsified the ToE. That is what led Mayr to say what he did.


What did Mayr say? I didn't see any of his quotes in this thread.

My main point for visiting is to ask, "What predictions are made by Intelligent Design?" Again, I've perused the forums, but can't find what I'm looking for.

Thank you,

Ten

[SLINKY]

I got my reply from dinosaur man today:

Thanks for the email, I would love to post your wallpaper, however, there are
a few bad words in it. If you make the changes we could put it up. There is
also some negative imagery located between the fishes back legs. I like your
website too! http://poetryring.com/
Sincerely,
Heath Reed
I didn't even notice the "imagery." They must have studied it hard and long. :lol:

[thomas]

Hey Ten, as you know I don't know much about evolutionary theory, but I don't really doubt that science has got it approximately correct. Now I may be biting off more than I'm willing to chew when I ask this question but what evidence is there exactly for some of the macro-evolutionary claims. Take for example the development of winged flight. How do tiny mutations at the cell level lead to the formation of a functioning wing. Is there a good, succinct, not too technical explanation you can point at ?

[Lurker]

For starters, creationism says that each species came about fairly quickly/abruptly at various times in earth's history.

[Tenspace]

Hey Ten, as you know I don't know much about evolutionary theory, but I don't really doubt that science has got it approximately correct. Now I may be biting off more than I'm willing to chew when I ask this question but what evidence is there exactly for some of the macro-evolutionary claims. Take for example the development of winged flight. How do tiny mutations at the cell level lead to the formation of a functioning wing. Is there a good, succinct, not too technical explanation you can point at ?
Thousands and thousands of years, thomas. That's where understanding of macroevolution breaks down. Heck, it's been less than a hundred generations since the time of Jesus. Multiply that timespan times ten. Now multiply it times ten again. You still haven't looked far enough back in history to see macroevolution in action (in mammals, anyway).

Current theory on winged flight (we talked awhile ago about this, when discussing Archaeopteryx) states that feathers were first, as an evolution of scales. The feathers aided control of body temperature (if you accept the exothermic model), or provided insulation during times of climate change (endothermic model). Why were they selected over scales? What cellular mutation occured that would change a scale to a feather? I don't know, and I'm willing to admit that. :) I haven't spent much time researching this, but I am sure there's a wealth of information on either of those questions.

Have you checked talk.origins? Their stuff is usually well-written. Maybe search wiki for feathers or avian evolution also.

The point I was hoping to make over at EvoFairyTale is that Creationism is not a predictive science, whereas Darwin's theories have been verified by prediction after prediction over time. That's why they are so strong, and so well accepted by the scientific community.

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

For starters, creationism says that each species came about fairly quickly/abruptly at various times in earth's history.
There are many theories which state the same thing, including Gould's punctuated equilibrium. A great treatment of it was done by Greg Bear's "Darwin's Radio".

Bottleneck theory, population segregation, geographic catastrophe - these are just a few things which would also bring about relatively rapid genetic changes, and they are all subsets of the theories that explain biological evolution. What I'm looking for are predictions which could add credibility to ID. Darwin himself predicted a molecular mechanism for his theory. It took a hundred years to find it.

Tenspace

[ocmpoma]

Not to argue or nitpick (I know, people only say things like that right before they do it), but keep in mind that Gould/Eldridge's punctuated equilibrium only happens 'quickly' in geologic terms - which means over the course of tens or perhaps hundreds of thousands of years.

As for talk.origins, here are a copula starters: a list (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214.html) of transitional fossils, and some evidence of macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html) which discusses wings.

[Tenspace]

Thanks, oc... and also, Gould's theory added to the body of theories about natural selection - it didn't replace it.

Ten

[WITHTEETH]

Hey Ten, as you know I don't know much about evolutionary theory, but I don't really doubt that science has got it approximately correct. Now I may be biting off more than I'm willing to chew when I ask this question but what evidence is there exactly for some of the macro-evolutionary claims. Take for example the development of winged flight. How do tiny mutations at the cell level lead to the formation of a functioning wing. Is there a good, succinct, not too technical explanation you can point at ?
Here are some examples of a genetic increase of information.
Nylon Bug, Drosophila sperm axoneme, sodium channel gene SCN11A, Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey, A Transposable Element-Mediated Gene Divergence that Directly Produces a Novel Type Bovine Bcnt Protein Including the Endonuclease Domain of RTE-1, evolution of a hominoid gene that supports high neurotransmitter flux. . I repeat, genetic information can increase. look this stuff up. here is a great link with many other links that support it.


http://www.televar.com/~jnj/item13.htm

[Tenspace]

I repeat, genetic information can increase. look this stuff up. here is a great link with many other links that support it.
This is a great example of what I was attempting to elucidate. ;) WITHTEETH stated that genetic information can increase. This creates a couple of predictable hypotheses: 1) That older DNA would contain less information (within the same haplogroup); 2) Existing DNA would be configured in such a way that the oldest functions would be centrally located, since information added to the codebase would have an extremely low probability of being inserted into the center of the structure.

Can you go out and test the validity of these predictions? You betcha. Both assertions are supported by genetic evidence. For example, the genetic code which determines body's layout sits near the center of chromosome 12. This is a fundamental piece of code, since it determines which end is the head and which is the tail. Look up Homeobox (Hox) genes to learn more about this.

What other examples are out there? I'll shut up now and let everyone else contribute.

Tenspace

[thomas]

Thousands and thousands of years, thomas. That's where understanding of macroevolution breaks down. Heck, it's been less than a hundred generations since the time of Jesus. Multiply that timespan times ten. Now multiply it times ten again. You still haven't looked far enough back in history to see macroevolution in action (in mammals, anyway).
I guess my imagination must just be lacking. I get the "lots of time" issue, but it must still fundamentally break down into a lot of very small steps, and its how those small steps of cell mutation add up to e.g. a whole working wing, in conjunction with a body shape that can fly etc, that boggles my mind.

Current theory on winged flight (we talked awhile ago about this, when discussing Archaeopteryx) states that feathers were first, as an evolution of scales. The feathers aided control of body temperature (if you accept the exothermic model), or provided insulation during times of climate change (endothermic model). Why were they selected over scales? What cellular mutation occured that would change a scale to a feather? I don't know, and I'm willing to admit that. :) I haven't spent much time researching this, but I am sure there's a wealth of information on either of those questions.

Have you checked talk.origins? Their stuff is usually well-written. Maybe search wiki for feathers or avian evolution also.
Yes, I know I should do my own research. I knew there wouldn't be a short-cut......

The point I was hoping to make over at EvoFairyTale is that Creationism is not a predictive science, whereas Darwin's theories have been verified by prediction after prediction over time. That's why they are so strong, and so well accepted by the scientific community.
I don't have a lot of time for the creationists. I think thats the wrong tree they are barking up.

[thomas]

Here are some examples of a genetic increase of information.
Nylon Bug, Drosophila sperm axoneme, sodium channel gene SCN11A, Adaptive evolution of a duplicated pancreatic ribonuclease gene in a leaf-eating monkey, A Transposable Element-Mediated Gene Divergence that Directly Produces a Novel Type Bovine Bcnt Protein Including the Endonuclease Domain of RTE-1, evolution of a hominoid gene that supports high neurotransmitter flux. . I repeat, genetic information can increase. look this stuff up. here is a great link with many other links that support it.


http://www.televar.com/~jnj/item13.htm
Hey, thanks for the help, but Transposable Element-Mediated Gene Divergence is some way beyond my understanding right now.

[Tenspace]

Here's another point: why should we attempt to explain macroevolution at a cellular level? We wouldn't use a microscope to examine distances measured in parsecs; we need to apply the appropriate methods and scales. You could examine why a lizard's scale adapted feather-like features, but you couldn't (or shouldn't) accept that as the complete explanation of dinosaurs to birds.

Here's a great quote from the National Academy of Sciences, from "Science and Creationism: A View from the National Academy of Sciences (Second Edition)"

Humans did not evolve from modern apes, but humans and modern apes shared a common ancestor, a species that no longer exists. Because we share a recent common ancestor with chimpanzees and gorillas, we have many anatomical, genetic, biochemical, and even behavioral similarities with these African great apes. We are less similar to the Asian apes orangutans and gibbons and even less similar to monkeys, because we share common ancestors with these groups in the more distant past.

"Evolution is a branching or splitting process in which populations split off from one another and gradually become different. As the two groups become isolated from each other, they stop sharing genes, and eventually genetic differences increase until members of the groups can no longer interbreed. At this point, they have become separate species. Through time, these two species might give rise to new species, and so on through millennia.

So, to describe macroevolution, we should look at population statistics and geological changes, not single-point mutations.

I'll leave the time and effort to extrapolate scales to feathers to flight to those who get paid to do it. To some, it's their life's work. And if I can occasionally catch a glimpse of logic in technical papers, I'll feel privileged to add to my store of knowledge.

Tenspace

[ghoulslime]

Hey Ten, as you know I don't know much about evolutionary theory, but I don't really doubt that science has got it approximately correct. Now I may be biting off more than I'm willing to chew when I ask this question but what evidence is there exactly for some of the macro-evolutionary claims. Take for example the development of winged flight. How do tiny mutations at the cell level lead to the formation of a functioning wing. Is there a good, succinct, not too technical explanation you can point at ?
My suggestion is don't even look at it, dude. That was the final nail in my theist coffin. If you are happy as a Christian, the fewer questions you ask the better. This is not your ordinary Cynical Ghoulslime speaking. I mean it sincerely.

[ghoulslime]

I got my reply from dinosaur man today:

Thanks for the email, I would love to post your wallpaper, however, there are
a few bad words in it. If you make the changes we could put it up. There is
also some negative imagery located between the fishes back legs. I like your
website too! http://poetryring.com/
Sincerely,
Heath Reed
I didn't even notice the "imagery." They must have studied it hard and long. :lol:
I wonder if I stroked his imagination a bit? I still doubt if I can cause him to come to a different conclusion. But that’s the ups and downs of religious discussion. I do believe I penetrated his defenses somewhat. He’ll be beating off Atheists right and left in his sleep.

:D

[Lurker]

There are many theories which state the same thing, including Gould's punctuated equilibrium. A great treatment of it was done by Greg Bear's "Darwin's Radio".

Bottleneck theory, population segregation, geographic catastrophe - these are just a few things which would also bring about relatively rapid genetic changes, and they are all subsets of the theories that explain biological evolution. What I'm looking for are predictions which could add credibility to ID. Darwin himself predicted a molecular mechanism for his theory. It took a hundred years to find it.
I would also say that creationism (not the young-earth type) predicts human life was created in the more recent past. Using the genesis account as an outline, I think creationism would say (generally speaking) that plant life on land was first, followed by sea life, birds, a wide variety of land mammals and finally modern humans. I say generally speaking because there could be some overlapping or repeating of events plus I don't think this list is supposed to account for every living thing (i.e. insects, bacteria, etc).

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

There are many theories which state the same thing, including Gould's punctuated equilibrium. A great treatment of it was done by Greg Bear's "Darwin's Radio".

Bottleneck theory, population segregation, geographic catastrophe - these are just a few things which would also bring about relatively rapid genetic changes, and they are all subsets of the theories that explain biological evolution. What I'm looking for are predictions which could add credibility to ID. Darwin himself predicted a molecular mechanism for his theory. It took a hundred years to find it.
I would also say that creationism (not the young-earth type) predicts human life was created in the more recent past. Using the genesis account as an outline, I think creationism would say (generally speaking) that plant life on land was first, followed by sea life, birds, a wide variety of land mammals and finally modern humans. I say generally speaking because there could be some overlapping or repeating of events.
Depends on how liberally you interpret a "day". If you're a strict fundamentalist young-earth creationist and say that one "day" means one modern-day 24-hour period, then as far as the fossil record goes, the appearance of every living thing should coincide. Especially if you believe there was no death before the Fall. (Of course, you could also believe the Flood sorted the fossils somehow, but that's a different story.)

If you're an old-earth creationist and view a "day" as thousands or millions of years, you'd have a slightly stronger case, except you'd still have to deal with the fact that plants were apparently created before the Sun (according to the Bible). Plus, I believe the fossil record shows that birds came later than land animals (amateur paleontologists, please let me know if I'm wrong on this one). Plus, would you include insects with the "birds" of the fifth day, or the "creeping things" of the sixth day?

[Tenspace]

There are many theories which state the same thing, including Gould's punctuated equilibrium. A great treatment of it was done by Greg Bear's "Darwin's Radio".

Bottleneck theory, population segregation, geographic catastrophe - these are just a few things which would also bring about relatively rapid genetic changes, and they are all subsets of the theories that explain biological evolution. What I'm looking for are predictions which could add credibility to ID. Darwin himself predicted a molecular mechanism for his theory. It took a hundred years to find it.
I would also say that creationism (not the young-earth type) predicts human life was created in the more recent past. Using the genesis account as an outline, I think creationism would say (generally speaking) that plant life on land was first, followed by sea life, birds, a wide variety of land mammals and finally modern humans. I say generally speaking because there could be some overlapping or repeating of events plus I don't think this list is supposed to account for every living thing (i.e. insects, bacteria, etc).
Well, the YEC argument is completely dead to me. Mitochondrial DNA analysis has killed that theory. OECs biggest problem is the reconciliation of discrepancies in the OT. Like the plants before the sun, as mentioned. But if someone would come up with a non-religious, testable theory based on ID which could lead to research and application, I'd be interested to hear it.

Tenspace

[Lurker]

Well, the YEC argument is completely dead to me. Mitochondrial DNA analysis has killed that theory. OECs biggest problem is the reconciliation of discrepancies in the OT. Like the plants before the sun, as mentioned. But if someone would come up with a non-religious, testable theory based on ID which could lead to research and application, I'd be interested to hear it.
The OEC's view (as far as I'm concerned) is the sun was created on day one. I've been over this 2-3 times so let's not do it again.

I think another prediction is early life would be complex.

[ocmpoma]

The way I see ID, the only prediction it makes is that there is a designer. After all, the designer could very easily design flawed, simple life forms as well as flawed, complex life forms and could have done so throughout history... of course, none of this is testable, not to mention the whole question of why and how...

[Lurker]

The way I see ID, the only prediction it makes is that there is a designer. After all, the designer could very easily design flawed, simple life forms as well as flawed, complex life forms and could have done so throughout history... of course, none of this is testable, not to mention the whole question of why and how...
Basically I agree with you - ID says there is a designer and that's about it. The why and how questions would also be asked if you theorized that some other life form in the universe is the source for life here on earth. You'd want to find the other source (designer) first then ask the why and how questions.

This Nobel winning physicist (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml), and theist, seems to think ID has some merit. - "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real."

[Rhinoqulous]

The biggest problem for ID is that even with the most coherent argument, it doesn't get you where theists think it does (a particular God). Even IF there is evidence of design in nature, and IF this evidence points towards a divine designer, this is NO PROOF of the existence of the Christian (or any other) God. So IF there is a watchmaker, it doesn't mean the watchmaker gives a damn about the watches.

J.S. Mill writes about this, I can't recall the book; I'll look it up when I get home.

Rhinoq

[Bighead]

The OEC's view (as far as I'm concerned) is the sun was created on day one. I've been over this 2-3 times so let's not do it again.
could you let me know where you've gone over this? I'm just curious where you got it from because if the passages go in chronological order (as it seems that they do) then it stands to reason that the sun was created on the 4th day, not the first. Unless, of course, the 2 great lights referred to that govern the day and night are not the sun and moon as I interpret it

[ocmpoma]

"This Nobel winning physicist, and theist, seems to think ID has some merit."

Ah. A physicist, who is admittedly biased on the subject, wieghs in more or less in favor of ID. Too bad he doesn't really agree with ID proponents:
"People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view."
And, he falls back on the old anthropic principle (yawn):
"This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way."

[Lurker]

"This Nobel winning physicist, and theist, seems to think ID has some merit."

Ah. A physicist, who is admittedly biased on the subject, wieghs in more or less in favor of ID. Too bad he doesn't really agree with ID proponents:
"People are misusing the term intelligent design to think that everything is frozen by that one act of creation and that there's no evolution, no changes. It's totally illogical in my view."
And, he falls back on the old anthropic principle (yawn):
"This is a very special universe: it's remarkable that it came out just this way."
Regardless, I tend to agree with his view of creation and evolution having their part. You seem to think that ID has one big monolithic viewpoint when it doesn't.

Is a physicist unbiased only if he agrees with you?

[Lurker]

The OEC's view (as far as I'm concerned) is the sun was created on day one. I've been over this 2-3 times so let's not do it again.
could you let me know where you've gone over this? I'm just curious where you got it from because if the passages go in chronological order (as it seems that they do) then it stands to reason that the sun was created on the 4th day, not the first. Unless, of course, the 2 great lights referred to that govern the day and night are not the sun and moon as I interpret it
The Search feature is a wonderful tool. You should learn to use it. ;) See post #81 here (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?pid=23446#p23446).

[ocmpoma]

"You seem to think that ID has one big monolithic viewpoint when it doesn't."
No, your physicist seems to think that ID has a monolithic viewpoint. I think that ID proponents will change their viewpoint whenever it suits their agenda.

"Is a physicist unbiased only if he agrees with you?"
Nice try at the low blow, lurk. I thought you'd moved beyond such things. Apparently not.
A physicist can disagree with me and be unbiased. A physicist who self-identifies as a Christian is obviously biased when it comes to many, many things, one of which is the origin of life, the universe, and everything. Dr. Townes is biased against not only my point of view on these things, but also against the points of view of Hindus, Pagans, Taoists, Buddhists, etc. etc. etc.

I'll state it more succinctly, so as to match your smarmy tone:
Christians are all biased concerning the origins of life and of the universe.

[Lurker]

No, your physicist seems to think that ID has a monolithic viewpoint. I think that ID proponents will change their viewpoint whenever it suits their agenda.
He's not 'my physicist'. I don't know how you can change ID to anything else if all it's saying is "there is a designer".

Now, is a physicist correct only if he's a Christian?
Being correct has nothing to do with your beliefs - christian, muslim, atheist or otherwise. The point is we are all biased so why bother bringing it up? The real questions are "Is he correct?" and "How do you know?".

[ocmpoma]

ID folks tend to be vague not only about who they think the designer might be, but also about whether they are OEC or YEC, among other things.
I brought up your physicist's bias (he's yours 'cause you introduced him as a supporter of ID, which falls squarely within rebuttals to evolutionary biology, not physics) because in this case, the bias matters. He's a Christian, which means he has preconcieved notions about the creation, etc. If I were to intorduce the viewpoint of a Marxist in discussing history, don't you think his bias would be important?

Note: lurker quoted my post above before I edited it ("Now, is a physicist correct only if he's a Christian?").

[Lurker]

He's a Christian, which means he has preconcieved notions about the creation, etc. If I were to intorduce the viewpoint of a Marxist in discussing history, don't you think his bias would be important?
Of course he's biased, but that has nothing to do with the truth of the claims. They are either correct or incorrect regardless of his bias. Same goes for Marx. Facts are neutral, they don't support or deny the existence of a designer. The interpretation of the facts is where bias comes in - and we all have bias. Which bias is the correct bias? If anyone can answer that question it will help put a lot of these issues to rest. Of course we'd have to question the answer, because that person is biased!!

Many here have said that humans are prone to forming patterns in their mind. They see patterns where there are none, and so they say, theists see the "pattern" of god in nature where there is none. What about seeing patterns in a collection of facts? Can humans take a group of facts and assemble them in such a way as to see a pattern, or conclusion, that really isn't there? I think they can. So the question again is "Who's pattern is the correct one?" and "Since we're all prone to seeing various patterns, how can you really know?".

[Little Earth Stamper]

He's a Christian, which means he has preconcieved notions about the creation, etc. If I were to intorduce the viewpoint of a Marxist in discussing history, don't you think his bias would be important?
Of course he's biased, but that has nothing to do with the truth of the claims. They are either correct or incorrect regardless of his bias. Same goes for Marx. Facts are neutral, they don't support or deny the existence of a designer. The interpretation of the facts is where bias comes in - and we all have bias. Which bias is the correct bias? If anyone can answer that question it will help put a lot of these issues to rest. Of course we'd have to question the answer, because that person is biased!!

Many here have said that humans are prone to forming patterns in their mind. They see patterns where there are none, and so they say, theists see the "pattern" of god in nature where there is none. What about seeing patterns in a collection of facts? Can humans take a group of facts and assemble them in such a way as to see a pattern, or conclusion, that really isn't there? I think they can. So the question again is "Who's pattern is the correct one?" and "Since we're all prone to seeing various patterns, how can you really know?".
Well, it seems to me that identifying which patternas a person sees as more likely (Marxism, Christianity) is a darn good start.

For example, you could say to yourself, "This guy is a Marxist. Who are some of the important critics of Marxism? What do they say?"

That would be a start.

[ocmpoma]

You are correct of course, lurker, when you say that what is correct does not depend upon a person't bias. The problem is, you introduced said physicist's position on a matter as an appeal to authority. But, your authority's opinions 1) don't matter, because a physicist is not an authority on evolution and 2) are biased because your authority has preconceptions regarding the area in which his authority was appealed to, i.e. origins.
As an example, I offered up my getting the opinion of a Marxist in regard to history. A better example would have been getting the thoughts of an Objectivist on the literary merits of Atlas Shrugged The problem with it is, not only is your physicist not an authority on ID, he's already made up his mind about creation. His Protestantism colors all of his thoughts on creationism, just as an Objectivist's philosophical leanings would color his opinion of Rand's work. Therefore, his position on ID is pretty much negligible.
I'm not saying that no one is biased, of course. I strongly advocate recognition of biases, as we all have them. There is no correct bias - all bias, by definition, distorts. As for patterns, I would say that no pattern is correct - all patterns are fabrications of the human mind.

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

The way I see ID, the only prediction it makes is that there is a designer. After all, the designer could very easily design flawed, simple life forms as well as flawed, complex life forms and could have done so throughout history... of course, none of this is testable, not to mention the whole question of why and how...
Basically I agree with you - ID says there is a designer and that's about it. The why and how questions would also be asked if you theorized that some other life form in the universe is the source for life here on earth. You'd want to find the other source (designer) first then ask the why and how questions.

This Nobel winning physicist (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml), and theist, seems to think ID has some merit. - "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real."
He seems to be more of a Deist than anything. Though he does give partial credit to God for inventing the maser.

[Tenspace]

The way I see ID, the only prediction it makes is that there is a designer. After all, the designer could very easily design flawed, simple life forms as well as flawed, complex life forms and could have done so throughout history... of course, none of this is testable, not to mention the whole question of why and how...
Basically I agree with you - ID says there is a designer and that's about it. The why and how questions would also be asked if you theorized that some other life form in the universe is the source for life here on earth. You'd want to find the other source (designer) first then ask the why and how questions.

This Nobel winning physicist (http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2005/06/17_townes.shtml), and theist, seems to think ID has some merit. - "Intelligent design, as one sees it from a scientific point of view, seems to be quite real."
This is a really interesting article. I'd say this guy is wise enough to step out from the mainstream and say what he feels. It's interesting that he sees evolution as fact, yet is willing to consider there's an intelligent designer behind it all. I wouldn't agree that it's either multiverses or designers, though.

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

Well, I have definitely had my posting priveleges revoked after one post at Evolution Fairy Tale. I apparently have violated their policy of not asking closed-ended questions. So, I guess that Creationism makes no predictions, and they're afraid to admit it.

Pussies.

Ten

[Tenspace]

Thomas or Lurker, maybe one of you could drop by at evolutionfairytale.org and ask them for a list of predictions made by Creationism. I'm really interested in this, and I don't take lightly to being banned for no reason.

Thanks... Ten

[Bighead]

I tried to go to evolutionfairytale.org but I couldn't find anywhere to post a question. It just took me to some domain name search. and it said on the top "Coming soon, check back"

[Lurker]

Thomas or Lurker, maybe one of you could drop by at evolutionfairytale.org and ask them for a list of predictions made by Creationism. I'm really interested in this, and I don't take lightly to being banned for no reason.
What, you didn't like the short list I gave you? I'm offended. :)

[Tenspace]

LOL! The list was fine, but I'm really curious as to the predictions offered by them. I'm guessing they don't have any, but at least I'd like to try to hold a rational conversation... rational conversation with a YEC? What am I saying? :)

Ten

[Tenspace]

I tried to go to evolutionfairytale.org but I couldn't find anywhere to post a question. It just took me to some domain name search. and it said on the top "Coming soon, check back"
Err... it's evolutionfairytale.com - sorry.

Ten

[Lurker]

LOL! The list was fine, but I'm really curious as to the predictions offered by them. I'm guessing they don't have any, but at least I'd like to try to hold a rational conversation... rational conversation with a YEC? What am I saying? :)
For the record, I'm not a YEC kind of guy. I reject that wholeheartedly. No personal offense meant to my YEC friends out there - but I think they need to re-examine their position in light of the evidence.

Here's a summary of my predicitons:
1) There was a beginning to the universe (Gen 1:1)
2) Universe appears to be designed (subjective??)
3) Complex species appear suddenly, not gradually (rapid appearance of life)
4) Early life is complex (similar to above)
5) Recent human origins, not decended from non-human species. Perhaps at the time of the bottleneck?
6) Human origins traced back to the general area of the middle east. NE Africa is close enough in my opinion. S. Africa or some other distant place would falsify this one.

[Tenspace]

LOL! The list was fine, but I'm really curious as to the predictions offered by them. I'm guessing they don't have any, but at least I'd like to try to hold a rational conversation... rational conversation with a YEC? What am I saying? :)
For the record, I'm not a YEC kind of guy. I reject that wholeheartedly. No personal offense meant to my YEC friends out there - but I think they need to re-examine their position in light of the evidence.

Here's a summary of my predicitons:
1) There was a beginning to the universe (Gen 1:1)
Let's not argue down the causal path. I don't know if I'd call that a prediction. Are you familiar with the non-theistic prediction that led to the confirmation of Big Bang theory? (Arno Penzias was involved) Now, that's what I'd call a prediction!

2) Universe appears to be designed (subjective??)
Very subjective. Consider the myriad of life we have yet to learn about. Can anyone conclusively say that we were designed? Again, that's not a prediction as much as a statement of position.

3) Complex species appear suddenly, not gradually (rapid appearance of life)
This is a good prediction, but I don't think the fossil record supports this. Yes, there are some instances which appear that life evolved more rapidly than standard models, but I don't think the explanation requires a designer, considering that less than .0001 percent of anything that ever lived would have the chance to fossilize and leave a record if its existence. In addition, if there are only a few billion fossils available, do you think we have even scratched the surface with regard to discovering them?

4) Early life is complex (similar to above)
Completely antithetical to Evolution. Discoveries in genetics are proving this wrong. Natural selection predicts that earlier life would be less complex. Evolutionary Biology is bearing this out. Consider the evolutionary history of our chromosomes.

5) Recent human origins, not decended from non-human species. Perhaps at the time of the bottleneck?
All primates are descended from non-humans. Our split with the chimps and apes was so long ago that there was plenty of time for speciation among the future hominids and apes. Neandertal, for example, is not even in the Sapien's lineage; they were a parallel development that went extinct several thousand years ago.

6) Human origins traced back to the general area of the middle east. NE Africa is close enough in my opinion. S. Africa or some other distant place would falsify this one.
Human origins are traced back to central Africa. The reason that the middle east is so important in the history of humans, is that it is a bottleneck, a land bridge that almost all humans coming out of Africa had to cross. You might consider it the first rest stop, but it is not the location of origin. There have been recent discoveries of Australopithicines in western Africa, which would place the emergence of proto-humans along a line that parallels the equator and covers a swath from west-central Africa to east-central Africa. If you compare emergence areas on a map, you'll see that humans evolved quite a distance from the middle east, which may fall under your falsification rule. Remember, a great measure of our evolutionary success comes from the fact that we are a nomadic, exploring species.

This is cool, because you have listed some predictions we can research and argue about.

Tenspace

[Lurker]

You're going to kick my butt on this whole topic but I'll give it a try anyway. Be gentle. :D

Completely antithetical to Evolution. Discoveries in genetics are proving this wrong. Natural selection predicts that earlier life would be less complex. Evolutionary Biology is bearing this out. Consider the evolutionary history of our chromosomes.
That's why they call it creation - it's antithetical - at least the begininning part. I consider the living cell complex so that's what I'm saying here. Early life may be less complex than today, but still complex. That's what I'm saying.

All primates are descended from non-humans. Our split with the chimps and apes was so long ago that there was plenty of time for speciation among the future hominids and apes. Neandertal, for example, is not even in the Sapien's lineage; they were a parallel development that went extinct several thousand years ago.
You say this as a statement of fact, yet all I've read is hominids/chips/apes are seperate species without a known precursor. Do we know what this non-human decendent is?

Human origins are traced back to central Africa. The reason that the middle east is so important in the history of humans, is that it is a bottleneck, a land bridge that almost all humans coming out of Africa had to cross. You might consider it the first rest stop, but it is not the location of origin. There have been recent discoveries of Australopithicines in western Africa, which would place the emergence of proto-humans along a line that parallels the equator and covers a swath from west-central Africa to east-central Africa. If you compare emergence areas on a map, you'll see that humans evolved quite a distance from the middle east, which may fall under your falsification rule. Remember, a great measure of our evolutionary success comes from the fact that we are a nomadic, exploring species.
We differ here (I think) because you say other hominids are linked to modern humans via common ancestor. This relates to my question above. Do we know what this non-human decendent is?

For your information Toumai Man (Chad) supposedly throws a huge monkey wrench into the human evolutionary theory. These summaries at nature.com shed some light on this:

"Oldest member of human family found"
John Whitfield
SUMMARY: New-found skull could sink our current ideas about human evolution.
News@Nature , - (08 Jul 2002) Feature
Full Text | PDF |

"Facelift seals standing of oldest hominid"
Jessica Ebert
SUMMARY: Computer reconstruction and new fossils cement place in history for Toumaï.
CONTEXT: ...find was unveiled in 2002 and dated to about 7 million years ago (see "Oldest member of human family found"). Based on the size and shape of the teeth and skull base,...
News@Nature , - (04 Apr 2005) News
Full Text | PDF |

I couldn't read the nature.com articles, but I've read other articles that explain it. I guess the results suggest that Australopithecines are on a side branch, not transitional forms of modern humans. What do you think?

[Tenspace]

Aah, a challenge. :) I will have to dig before I answer, but I shall. Give me some time, things are crazy today.

Ten

[Lurker]

Aah, a challenge. :) I will have to dig before I answer, but I shall. Give me some time, things are crazy today.
Cool! The Chad Man is an interesting story. I apologize for mixing the terms ancestor/decendent in my post. It was late. Look forward to hearing your comments on this. I found this comment/quote related to the nature.com article.

You can read the News@Nature article titled "Oldest member of human family found" that contains quotes like "Toumaï is the tip of that iceberg - one that could sink our current ideas about human evolution. "Anybody who thinks this isn't going to get more complex isn't learning from history," says Wood. "When I went to medical school in 1963, human evolution looked like a ladder," he says. The ladder stepped from monkey to man through a progression of intermediates, each slightly less ape-like than the last. Now human evolution looks like a bush. We have a menagerie of fossil hominids - the group containing everything thought more closely related to humans than chimps. How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated."

[Lurker]

Ten,
I thought of a better way to restate #3 above along with more information for you to chew on.

3) First life on earth would appear early/suddenly instead of gradually.

Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive meteorite bombardment sufficient to wipe out all life occured about 3.8-3.9 billion years ago. This article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stm) says early life in Greenland rocks were found to be living about 3.7 billion years ago (3.5 billion years ago for these microtubules (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3648283.stm)) which leaves no more than 200 million years for life to form from non-life. I could be wrong, but I think that is very quick by evolutionary standards. I know this doesn't rule out other life-origin theories, however it matches what you'd expect from a creation perspective and that's all I'm saying.

[Mog]

Less than 200 million years ago, dinosaurs were around. Which evolutionary standards are you talking about?

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

Less than 200 million years ago, dinosaurs were around. Which evolutionary standards are you talking about?
Yeah, dinosaurs went extinct 65 million years ago. But I think lurker's asking if 200 million years is enough for abiogenesis. As for that, I have no idea, as there is still much of abiogenesis that is unknown. Though I did come across an estimate that only 10,000 years would be sufficient.

Source: http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/3.html (Check assertion 3.4)

[Philboid Studge]

I could be wrong, but I think that is very quick by evolutionary standards.
I don't know much about abiogenesis (and I apprecitate the education I've gotten from posters here), but why would one apply 'evolutionary standards' to the time frame?

[Lurker]

I could be wrong, but I think that is very quick by evolutionary standards.
I don't know much about abiogenesis (and I apprecitate the education I've gotten from posters here), but why would one apply 'evolutionary standards' to the time frame?
While I don't have the answer to your question, other than to say it's likely a question of probablility, I still am amazed that photosynthesis could have evolved in what appears to be a short period of time. The end of the article I referenced seems to sum it up.

"The biochemistry needed for oxygenic photosynthesis requires lots of bacterial evolution. If their findings are correct, life was very sophisticated, very early on in Earth history," said Buick.

"For three-quarters of a billion years after its formation, the Earth was being pounded by meteorites. That bombardment only ends around 3.8 billion years ago.

"You would think those sorts of conditions would be pretty hostile to oxygenic photosynthesisers. But life may be older and more robust than we thought."

[whoneedscience]

Oh, how can I resist...

Lurker, as far as abiogenesis and the complexity of cells, we know with some certainty that the first cells would have been extremely simple, with little more than self-replicating nucleotides surrounded by a spontaneously created phospholipid bilayer. These protocells would have required very little to survive if all they needed was floating freely in their environment, making photosynthesis unnecessary for potentially millions of years. Plus, photosynthesis as we know it only makes sense relative to the complex interaction of aerobic respiration that has taken over much of the planet. Respiration based on other chemicals and energy sources such as methane (as in deep sea environments such as hot vents) that are much less complex and easier to evolve over short periods, is also concievable. We would know next to nothing of other competing forms of cell energy since our own version has all but wiped out evidence for it.

For Natural Selection to take effect, all that is needed is a self-replicating molecule that can be imperfectly copied. Once that occurs, the ones that can encode the most information in the best way would be selected for, and the evolution of more complex, prokaryotic, eukaryotic, and eventually multicellular systems could occur. We already know that these more complicated processes took place over a significant time span (if protocellular life started within the first 200 million years, eukaryotes would have had 1.2 billion years to develop, and life as we know it would have had another 2 billion to get started).

And please just don't tell me you doubt that humans and the other great apes share a common ancestor. I would like to think I didn't just waste twenty minutes developing an argument for someone so blind.

[Lurker]

And please just don't tell me you doubt that humans and the other great apes share a common ancestor. I would like to think I didn't just waste twenty minutes developing an argument for someone so blind.
I'm not an expert, but I'm curious just like the next guy. Ten is digging for an answer so I'll ask you. What do you make of the Toumai Man discovery discussed in posts #73-75?

[Evil_Mage_Ra]

And please just don't tell me you doubt that humans and the other great apes share a common ancestor. I would like to think I didn't just waste twenty minutes developing an argument for someone so blind.
I'm not an expert, but I'm curious just like the next guy. Ten is digging for an answer so I'll ask you. What do you make of the Toumai Man discovery discussed in posts #73-75?
I don't really see what's so controversial about Chad Man. Not that I'm an expert, but a quick Wikipedia search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toumai) seems to suggest that either Chad Man (and not Australopithecus) is a common ancestor to humans and chimps, or that it's just a branch of the family tree (and not directly related to either species). Nothing that "throws a wrench" in evolutionary theory. It'd be helpful if I had those articles, though. I think I'll drop by my school's library to see if I can get them, and I'll comment further if something new comes up.

[Lurker]

I don't really see what's so controversial about Chad Man. Not that I'm an expert, but a quick Wikipedia search (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toumai) seems to suggest that either Chad Man (and not Australopithecus) is a common ancestor to humans and chimps, or that it's just a branch of the family tree (and not directly related to either species). Nothing that "throws a wrench" in evolutionary theory. It'd be helpful if I had those articles, though. I think I'll drop by my school's library to see if I can get them, and I'll comment further if something new comes up.
Remember, I'm just a layperson so I'm just asking questions and not making any accusations here.

From what I've read, Chad Man is a separate species of hominid, much more modern than he should be. It's as if a modern human skull was found 5 million years ago. I'm exagerating but you get the point. That's the monkey wrench and I'm guessing it's also the reason for quotes in Nature like "Toumaï is the tip of that iceberg - one that could sink our current ideas about human evolution." and "We have a menagerie of fossil hominids - the group containing everything thought more closely related to humans than chimps. How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated."

I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts.

[schemanista]

From what I've read, Chad Man is a separate species of hominid, much more modern than he should be. It's as if a modern human skull was found 5 million years ago. I'm exagerating but you get the point. That's the monkey wrench and I'm guessing it's also the reason for quotes in Nature like "Toumaï is the tip of that iceberg - one that could sink our current ideas about human evolution." and "We have a menagerie of fossil hominids - the group containing everything thought more closely related to humans than chimps. How they are related to each other and which, if any of them, are human forebears is still debated."

I'd be interested to hear everyone's thoughts.
I'm a little puzzled by Nature's hysterical positioning of this find. Brunet found the Toumai fossil in 2002 and in 2005, hominid evolution does not appear to have been monkey-wrenched. The evolutionary "bush" keeps getting re-drawn, but that's to be expected. Anatomically modern humans represent the end stage of what we're trying to trace. We don't know the beginning stage, nor do we know how many and exactly which intermediate stages existed between the two (I'm of the opinion that we'll probably never know, and that it doesn't matter). But evolutionary theory seems to be bearing itself out.

Maybe because Nature's editors presume that their audience is scientifically literate they assume that their reader will know that the whole "this could sink evolutionary theory" line should be taken to mean that this piece of the puzzle will change how we perceive the whole thing. Hasn't that been happening with every major find? It's all very exciting to anthropologists, but shouldn't be viewed through the general public's distorted perceptions of what constitutes a scientific controversy. Here's a fossil from an approximate period, which shares homologies with fossils from both earlier and later periods. In this, Toumai only validates evolution. Nothing really earth-shattering: we've got another clue, and we may have to adjust the timeline. Big deal. That's science.

Consider: we presume that humans have evolved from predecessors. We don't know exactly which of the now extinct species are direct ancestors, but if evolution is true, we expect to find ancestors. So Brunet has found a fossil which brings us closer to the point at which homonids and apes diverged (there's no consensus that it is in fact a homonid): isn't that what evolutionary theory predicts all along? I understand that the earlier "ladder" paradigm is necessarily on the way out, but that's yet more proof that evolutionary development proceeds along random paths, some of which wind up more successful than others. A non-directed process of adaptation "tries" out as many different paths as there are ecological niches to populate. Some die out, some continue to evolve and that's how evolution works.

Isn't the fact that there were numerous "branches" in this process completely consistent with the theory's predictions? On the flip side, it would suggets that the "designer", if there was one, seemed to favor iterative refinement and I'd be curious as to why "it" would choose so apparently random and inefficient a method to produce the species which is supposedly the pinnacle of its creation.

[Tenspace]

Argh, I've been slammed at work, and haven't had time to join in. Soon, though, soon.

Ten

[Tenspace]

Ten,
I thought of a better way to restate #3 above along with more information for you to chew on.

3) First life on earth would appear early/suddenly instead of gradually.

Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago. The massive meteorite bombardment sufficient to wipe out all life occured about 3.8-3.9 billion years ago. This article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3321819.stm) says early life in Greenland rocks were found to be living about 3.7 billion years ago (3.5 billion years ago for these microtubules (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3648283.stm)) which leaves no more than 200 million years for life to form from non-life. I could be wrong, but I think that is very quick by evolutionary standards. I know this doesn't rule out other life-origin theories, however it matches what you'd expect from a creation perspective and that's all I'm saying.
200 million years is a reasonable period for life to form. It's a decent sized chunk of time by evolutionary standards as well. The math experiment I quoted earlier, "multiply by 10 and then by 10 again" would only carry us out 100,000 years. Interesting how our brains have a hard time grasping "order of magnitude". :)

Evolution is much like life as an air traffic controller: hours (or millenia in evolution) of boredom punctuated by moments of sheer terror.

In other words, once conditions are ripe for speciation, changes in a displaced population will occur much more frequently and rapidly after the initial split, followed by fewer and fewer adaptations. This makes sense when you think about it. We'll use the mythical Snipe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snipe_hunt) as our evolutionary organism of choice. Let's say that a great flood inundates the snipe population's grassy knoll. Though most die, some snipes are carried off by the flood, and are washed into the valley below, where they face a completely new set of selection pressures. There are different predators, their food sources have changed, and they no longer have a supply of wicker from which to make their nests.

Obviously, many of the relocated snipes die due to these new pressures. However, a few survive to breed, building crude but serviceable nests from the local rattan grasses. At this point, we now have two populations to compare. The remaining flood survivors found on the grassy knoll, and a new population, facing tough times in the valley below.

The original population of grassy knoll snipes really don't face any changes in their environment, excepting the after-effects of the flood (mud, smelly dead things, etc). However, the newly-relocated valley snipes must somehow adapt with each generation, mutations which aid in survival if they are to become an evolutionary success story. Over the years, the new population becomes more adept at avoiding the predators they face, while they also cull those individuals who can't survive on the new diet. After several thousand years of separation, the founder population has hardly changed, because they never faced any different types of selection pressures like the valley population. The valley snipes have changed, dramatically - because they have faced a whole new set of circumstances. Traits which helped them survive on the grassy knoll are no longer important. Chances are that they have evolved to the point where they are no longer sexually compatible with the original population. They have become a new species - and yes, they are still snipes.

Now, instead of a few thousand years, imagine that this scenario repeated itself again and again over several million years. Adaptive changes have radiated out from the valley population, creating many different lineages. Concurrently, the same could have happened to the knoll snipes, spawning a few evolutionary branches of their own. And although the descendants have retained many of the snipe's original features (body plan, lateral symmetry, etc.) they have adapted new features defining them as a completely different animal. The forelimb appendages became much larger and stronger, with an additional stripping claw- these changes were induced by their need to cultivate the much stiffer rattan for their nests. Their teeth have grown larger because of the tougher foodstuffs, which led to changes in their jaw structure, musculature, and digestive tract. I'm sure we could continue describing variations, but I think you get the picture.

Here is another point - the descendants of the valley population carry immune-system responses to diseases that the knoll snipes never experienced. Much like the decimation of 70 percent of the population of the Americas after the arrival of Europeans (from smallpox and other diseases they brought), if the knoll snipes ever comingle with the valley snipes, there's a good chance that the valley snipes will introduce pathogens which can infect any snipe, wiping out the population of knoll snipes, except those who develop an immunity to the valley strain.

And the cycle continues...

Tenspace

[Lurker]

You should have been a writer. Nice story.

[Tenspace]

You should have been a writer. Nice story.
It's not too late... any literary agents out there? :)

[Lurker]

Here's a fossil from an approximate period, which shares homologies with fossils from both earlier and later periods. In this, Toumai only validates evolution. Nothing really earth-shattering: we've got another clue, and we may have to adjust the timeline. Big deal. That's science.
Yes we have another clue, but I don't see how it validates evolution so explain if you can. How can we accurately predict who is related to who if evolution bobs and weaves all over the place? I think this is the trouble brought on my Mr. Chad Man. If he has some ancient features and some modern features then what do you do with this guy? Maybe homology is not what we think it is - just guessing.

Ten: I thought you were going to comment on Mr. Chad. He isn't getting any younger ya know. :D

[schemanista]

Yes we have another clue, but I don't see how it validates evolution so explain if you can.
Evolutionary theory allows us to make several predictions about the Toumai fossil and all of them have been born out. A "transitional" fossil will have homologies which link it to its ancesters and its descendants. The Toumai fossil has an ape-like cranium and a small (320-380cc) brain size, as well as maxillofacial characteristics shared by other ancient primates. That's the ancestral homology. Toumai has a couple of teeth which more closely resemble later species which are properly classified as homonids. It also has other facial characteristics (brow ridges...) which it shares in common with later species that we've classified as hominids. That's the link to its descendants.

This is all completely consistent with evolutionary theory. Toumai has also been dated to a period in which it's possible for a primate of its size to have evolved. More importantly, Toumai doesn't exhibit any characteristics which are inconsistent with evolutionary theory. What would have been scary for primate anthropologists is if Toumai could be conclusively dated to a period, say 50 million years earlier, in which no other similar primates appear to have existed. That's the "monkey wrench" which would throw the entire homonid evolutionary sceme into chaos. Even worse, what if Toumai had clear evidence that it breathed through gills? That would fuck everything up, although Kilik would cheer, since it would be a slam-dunk for his Atlantis theories.

Instead, the only real controversy here is whether we should consider Toumai to be closer to the ape side or to the homonid side. It's probably something we won't be able to answer unless a more intact specimen is discovered. The thing that's putting the kibosh on the "homonid" theory for me is the placement of Toumai's foramen magnum--it seems too far back for a bipedal primate.

Toumai is a major find. It's a previously-unkown species and pushes the "split" between the homonid and the ape branch further back, but it doesn't upset anyone's applecart. That's why I find the hysterical tone of the Nature article a little puzzling. 3 years later, paleo-anthropology is still keepin'on keepin'on and this promised death blow has not fallen.

How can we accurately predict who is related to who if evolution bobs and weaves all over the place?
Evolution as a theory has been confirmed through multiple lines of independant inquiry. That our understanding of the direct ancestory of homo sapiens sapiens is incomplete does not undermine evolution one jot. No goalposts are being moved. No one is jumping all over the place. Nothing is bobbing or weaving.

When it comes to humans, we're attempting to assemble a coherent picture of the lineage of one species using an incomplete fossil record. Of course we're working in pencil. Before you write that check to the Discovery Institute, please explain the genetic similarities amongst the entire surviving primate branche, if the presumption of common ancestry is false. Why do we share things such as the inability to convert L-gulonolactone to ascorbic acid if we're all just separate design projects? The whole "missing link" straw man is a hold-over from the early 20th century. Geneticists found the missing link in the genotype. Good luck refuting that.

You can't just junk evolution without suggesting something to replace it which better accounts for the data.

So lurker, how do you account for the Toumai fossil?

I think this is the trouble brought on my Mr. Chad Man. If he has some ancient features and some modern features then what do you do with this guy? Maybe homology is not what we think it is - just guessing.
Homologic recognition does involve guess work when the fossil you're examining is incomplete. But knock yourself out trying to discredit the use of homologies in recognizing common evolutionary paths. Homologies are foundational to evolution and we've got more than a hundred years of practice at identifying and classifying them.

Sorry lurker. Chad Man is not a very troubling fossil. Anthropologists are doing exactly the right thing with him: they're witholding conclusion and refusing to assertively classify the fossil until they can figure out a way to tease more details from it or, better yet, find another, more intact specimen.

Evolutionary theory will be continually refined: lineages will be redrawn, new fossils will fill in some blanks and create others but if you step back, you'll see that things are working exactly as they're supposed to.

[Tenspace]

Here's a fossil from an approximate period, which shares homologies with fossils from both earlier and later periods. In this, Toumai only validates evolution. Nothing really earth-shattering: we've got another clue, and we may have to adjust the timeline. Big deal. That's science.
Yes we have another clue, but I don't see how it validates evolution so explain if you can. How can we accurately predict who is related to who if evolution bobs and weaves all over the place? I think this is the trouble brought on my Mr. Chad Man. If he has some ancient features and some modern features then what do you do with this guy? Maybe homology is not what we think it is - just guessing.

Ahh, the misunderstanding of scientific progress. lurk, are you familiar with the story behind the creation of the periodic table of elements? I think the predictive abilities of Mendeleev's discovery form an apt analogy to the flux of evolutionary theory.

Ten: I thought you were going to comment on Mr. Chad. He isn't getting any younger ya know. :D
I'm just going to ramble on evolution for a moment - Schema's covered all the salient points.

Broadly speaking our ape ancestors went from being arboreal to living on the savannah. There's a crucial step between the two, though. Savannahs didn't just magically appear. Slowly changing climates first created what's called a tree savannah, which is more forested than our mind's picture of the grassy plains of Africa. Hominids could continue their arboreal nesting, foraging, and escaping while taking advantage of what the ground had to offer.

African apes split into two populations about six million years ago. Colin Groves was one of the first biologists to propose that different species of humans lived in the same region at the same time. He studied the evolution of tigers, wolves, buffalos, rhinos, elephants, and other mammals and determined that it was common for different species to coexist. If you can accept that man is a mammal, then the same should apply. And, we know that Homo Sapiens and Neandertals coexisted just 30,000 years ago.

The deal with Chad Man vs the Australopithecines may simply come down to convergent evolution. Just a couple of million years ago there were at least four distinct hominid species cohabitating the planet. I don't see how this is a big deal either.

Tenspace

[Lurker]

...you'll see that things are working exactly as they're supposed to.
I have to say "Huh?" to this ending statement because there doesn't seem to be a "supposed to" when it comes to evolutionary theory. It seems there are as many theories as there are people and I'd like to know where the official evolutionary model (or models) are because I can't seem to locate it/them.

Back in Darwin's day species-to-species evolution was said to move slowly and gradually in response to external pressures that required the species to adapt. Now it moves slowly except when it moves really quickly (as in the case of rapid bipedalism). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it also has no need for an external driving force since bipedalism occured prior to tool usage, larger brains and a forced move into the open savannah. What's next?

I obviously don’t understand the whole thing and it’s frustrating because I want to. I understand that theories get revised/updated according to recent findings, but it seems evolutionary theory is set up in such a way as to never fail – just adjust the theory to match the latest findings and you’re all set. If a modern day labrador retriever were found 2 mya, or another 2 dozen bipedal hominids in Asia near the time of the split from chimps I suspect that would fit in perfectly with evolutionary theory too. Not the old theory but the new one revised to match the data. The one that says hominids, immediately after the peeling off from chimps, stayed in africa except when they went to asia and the one that says dog ancestors evolved into modern dogs then into something more primitive then into modern dogs again.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not ranting at you or anyone in particular - I'm just ranting for ranting sake.

I think I need a nap. :|

[Lurker]

1) For an example of yo-yo evolution like my dog example above check out these stick insects (http://www.nature.com/nature/links/030116/030116-1.html) that evolved wings, later shed them, then evolved them back again - at least 4 times. Does this fit the evolutionary model?

2) For another example of super-fast evolution (the cambrian being yet another), check out the development of the human brain (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=18430). The cut-and-dry conclusion seems like more speculation than science.

"We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes -- and even that is a conservative estimate."

It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, according to Lahn. This means that selection has worked "extra-hard" during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans. "

[schemanista]

I have to say "Huh?" to this ending statement because there doesn't seem to be a "supposed to" when it comes to evolutionary theory. It seems there are as many theories as there are people and I'd like to know where the official evolutionary model (or models) are because I can't seem to locate it/them.
The "supposed to" means that none of the examples you've pointed out so far have been as transformative as you seem to want them to be. As I said, I don't understand the tenor of those Nature articles. It's almost as if they're pandering to the credulous and the uninformed. A very unusual pattern for such an esteemed publication.

Evolution consists of one "theory": the diversity of life visible today is the result of a several-billion-year process of gradual development. That is also a demonstrated fact, with millions of data points and neary two hundred years of observations to support it. No one who studies the issue can disagree that evolution has occurred. Even you concede its essential truth. Now there's rampant disagreement about which mechanics are applicable and when they should apply, but none of that upsets the applecart.

At its simplest, we can observe evolution as a change in allelle frequencies over time. We can also observe it as gross changes in phylogeny where homologues indicate the direction of common descent. We have a fossil record going back hundreds of millions of years. Finally, we can track evolutionary trends through DNA analysis.

The fact that most of the stuff you find puzzling manages to fit into the broader picture doesn't mean that evolution as a field is undefined and chimeric. It means that the model, if not the mechanics, has become extremely well understood and is getting more detailed by the minute. That's why theories about the mechanisms involved with evolution seem to change so quickly.

Consider also the informational explosion which has occurred since the end of the nineteenth century and the rapid accumulation of data which has happened since the early computer age of the fifties. Entire fields of inquiry have been completely overturned--to pick my current drug, consider that in 1960, most geologists considered plate tectonics to be a load of hooey. Now it's the best accepted model for the formation of the topology of our planet. Geologists didn't just catch a fad, they were convinced by both mountains and trenches full of evidence, which started accumulating with measurements of sea floor spreading. Isn't it significant that with all of the changes in biochemistry, genetics and biology as a whole that evoultion is still it when it comes to explaining why life looks and acts the way it does on this planet? It's one of the most successful scientific formulations and it's still around because it works.

Back in Darwin's day species-to-species evolution was said to move slowly and gradually in response to external pressures that required the species to adapt. Now it moves slowly except when it moves really quickly (as in the case of rapid bipedalism). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think it also has no need for an external driving force since bipedalism occured prior to tool usage, larger brains and a forced move into the open savannah. What's next?
We don't know yet. Why is this such a big deal? Do you get bent out of shape because, as Feyman quipped "if you think you understand quantum physics, then you don't understand quantum physics"? There's as much flux in most of the other scientific fields yet no one singles physics or chemistry out for the same kind of attention that biology and evolutionary development recieve. Why is that, do you think?

I obviously don’t understand the whole thing and it’s frustrating because I want to. I understand that theories get revised/updated according to recent findings, but it seems evolutionary theory is set up in such a way as to never fail – just adjust the theory to match the latest findings and you’re all set.
That's a huge misrepresention of the process. Your'e right, you don't understand evolution. Have you read some of the populist surveys such as Mayr's What evolution is? Sean Carroll's Endless Forms Most Beautiful: The New Science of Evo Devo and the Making of the Animal Kingdom is a new work that's garnering quite a bit of praise for being right on the money while still approachable. I'd reccomend starting with them, if you haven't already read them. I'm partial to Richard Dawkins, but if his transparent atheism turns you off, how about Ken Miller, who argues for evolution and for God. I really liked Finding Darwin's God even though the author is obviously infected with Christ-psychosis (sorry, couldn't help myself).

If a modern day labrador retriever were found 2 mya, or another 2 dozen bipedal hominids in Asia near the time of the split from chimps I suspect that would fit in perfectly with evolutionary theory too. Not the old theory but the new one revised to match the data. The one that says hominids, immediately after the peeling off from chimps, stayed in africa except when they went to asia and the one that says dog ancestors evolved into modern dogs then into something more primitive then into modern dogs again.
I've already spoken to this. You just don't understand how well supported evolution is. And the part about "not the old theory but the new one revised to match the data" sounds to me like you're pretty confused about science as well. Sorry if that comes across as condescending, but isn't that an exact description of what science is supposed to do?

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not ranting at you or anyone in particular - I'm just ranting for ranting sake.
It's an interesting rant. And where else do I get to expound about one of my favorite topics? I'm far too illiterate for Panda's Thumb. At least I can hold my own on TRA. That is until the real biologists show up.

Thanks for the chance to kick this around.

[schemanista]

1) For an example of yo-yo evolution like my dog example above check out these stick insects (http://www.nature.com/nature/links/030116/030116-1.html) that evolved wings, later shed them, then evolved them back again - at least 4 times. Does this fit the evolutionary model?
What evironmental pressures were involved and how long were the time scales? Sorry, I don't have time to read the article right now but I promise to get to it soon.

If you can correlate changes in the organism's environment or the niche that it occupied with changes in its development, you're going to start thinking like an evolutionist. Seriously, lurker, do you think this stuff "just happens"?

2) For another example of super-fast evolution (the cambrian being yet another), check out the development of the human brain (http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=18430). The cut-and-dry conclusion seems like more speculation than science.
The Cambrian is not an example of super-fast evolution. Sorry guy, that's an anti-evolutionist myth. What happens is that the fossil record makes it seem as if life "exploded" fully-formed, but the process was much more involved and drawn out than that. See the Talk Origins article.

"We've done a rough calculation that the evolution of the human brain probably involves hundreds if not thousands of mutations in perhaps hundreds or thousands of genes -- and even that is a conservative estimate."

It is nothing short of spectacular that so many mutations in so many genes were acquired during the mere 20-25 million years of time in the evolutionary lineage leading to humans, according to Lahn. This means that selection has worked "extra-hard" during human evolution to create the powerful brain that exists in humans. "
I call bullshit. I need to learn a little more about this Lahn fellow. Round up the usual suspects!

[Lurker]

What evironmental pressures were involved and how long were the time scales? Sorry, I don't have time to read the article right now but I promise to get to it soon.
This article (http://www.phschool.com/science/science_news/articles/retaking_flight.html) helps give more info. Love the whale reference.

"Biologists have long theorized that evolution has no rewind button, explains Whiting. When an animal depends for survival on a structure, such as the wing, any mutations that sabotage it get cleaned out of the gene pool quickly. However, if circumstances change so that the animal can get along flightless—and then some genetic quirk stops wing formation—harmful mutations build up unchecked in the rest of the wing-production pathway."

"It's as if a mammalogist found a whale [a former land creature] walking around on legs," says Whiting."

"This team found that the stick-insect family tree appeared to have sprouted upside down. The 16 species that provide the lower branches, representing the more ancient lineages, had the supposedly new-fangled characteristic of winglessness. Then, at the top of the DNA tree, wings appeared, seeming to have re-evolved at least four times, after up to 50 million years of winglessness."

[Lurker]

Schem:
What do you say about the very fast shift from knuckle-walking to bipedalism?

[ocmpoma]

I would like to expand a bit on what schem said above (and lurk, this isn't aimed in any way at you)Sorry if that comes across as condescending, but isn't that an exact description of what science is supposed to do?
When something turns up in biology or paleontology or whatever that seems odd or out of place within the framework of evolutionary theory, it gets examined, re-examined, argued about, re-argued about, hashed and re-hashed, etc. etc. Punctuated equilibrium is a great example of this. PE is not as widely accepted as one might believe if their only source for evolutionary theory was books written by Gould. It is an idea which is accepted to varying degrees by various people. But it's introduction did not destroy, or even significantly alter, evolution. Why is that? The answer is simple and yet, in a way, two-fold:
First, if scientists abandoned a theory every time something that didn't quite fit popped up and started over, we wouldn't have any scientists. Imagine what would have happened if chemists had abandoned the periodic table and molecular structure ideas every time a new element was discovered, only to start over again. What is done, instead, is that the theory is altered somewhat, shifted, changed, to incorporate new data. It takes a truly remarkable new vision (a la Einstein's relativity) to create a paradigm shift of sufficient magnitude as to overthrow a theory (and we still use Newtonian mechanics, anyway).
Second, the more robust, workable, and successful a theory is, the bigger the new vision must be to create a paradigm shift of the kind that Einstein created. As schem pointed out - evolution is remarkably successful - it works. It is simple enough yet broad enough to incorporate all the changes and new ideas that humans have come up with over the past one and a half centuries and counting. Think about that a minute - how much has the world changed since the American Civil War? Trains, cars, airplanes, jet propulsion, atomic energy and bombs, electicity and electronics, microwave and radiation, radio and radar, the list goes on - and again, as schem pointed out, most scientific theories have undergone major overhauls since that time. But Darwin's idea, the basis for evolution, disregarding the New Synthesis, remains pretty much unchanged. Darwin's theory is remarkable for that reason alone - keep in mind that the theory is so well structured that it in fact all but predicts a branch of science in wide use today - genetics.

Again - evolution works. That pretty much says it all.

[Lurker]

Appreciate the comments OC. I understand the whole revise-the-theory thing. I accept what we've found/discovered. It's real. I don't deny it. I still have many questions though.

Earlier I complained about the Talk Origins FAQ on transitional fossils coming to non-scientific conclusions based on what I see as pure homology. It "appears" or "looks like" it happened this way. Schem said those words are used to help the layperson such as myself understand and I can appreciate that. Where can I go to get a real answer then? If it happened then don't tell me it appears to have happened. Tell me how you know it happened.

[Another brick in the wall]

Science is in the business of making confident guesses. Can a scientist prove absolutely how organism X evolved? No, but they can look at the evidence and provide the most likely explanation. Scientists don't claim to know everything so everything they say is tentative.

[ocmpoma]

"I still have many questions though."
Questions are always good things (except when they aren't).

Unfortunately, the state of science today is such that in order to get the 'real' answers, you need to get an M.S. - preferably from a good institution. You aren't really going to find good, detailed answers in popular books or on the web.

I hope you keep the questions coming, for one. They're a hell of a lot better than the typical questions I hear about evolution, and I enjoy thinking about, finding, or reading the answers.

[Lurker]

The Talk Origins “Fact and Theory FAQ” is helping to focus my thoughts a bit more. I see the theory part applies to the unknown mechanism - the "how did it happen" part. We have all these different theories based on the evidence we’ve found and somehow we’re supposed to make all the puzzle pieces fit together using science.

By design, science is restricted to physicalism/materialism and that limits our pool of potential theories to select from. The question is – are there other theory pools outside physicalism/materialism that we could pull from? Science can’t answer that question despite the attempts by many to use science to prove science - you can't. To answer that question we’ve got to walk over to the philosophy department (that’s you Rhinoq).

As you can imagine, I’ve seen some decent philosophical arguments to suggest there is more to this universe than physical stuff. You seem to find these arguments lacking which explains why your theory of the unknown evolutionary mechanism is limited to physics while my theory allows metaphysics.

[schemanista]

Schem:
What do you say about the very fast shift from knuckle-walking to bipedalism?
Define "very fast". Remember that gradualism doesn't mean slow. It means incremental. It means that changes occur across generations, or, to refute a common anti-evolutionary strawman, it emphatically does not mean that two monkeys had sex and gave birth to Lucy.

The latest estimates I can find assume that the hominids split from the ape ancestors somewhere about 5 million years ago. The first fully bipedal hominid dates to about 4 million years ago. A million years may seem fast in evolutionary terms, but remember that it's about 62,500 generations if we assume a 16 year breeding cycle or ~45,000 if we assume a human generation of 22 years. If the environmental pressures are severe enough, as in the shift from jungle to tree savannah to grassland, we're either going to see rapid extinction (which is in the fossil record) or rapid evolution (which is also in the fossil record) or most probably both (which explains the hominid fossil record, AFAIC). Things can change a lot in 45,000 generations.

This is completely consistent with the amount of climatalogical and topographical change which has been occurring throughout the Holocene. And that's one of the things I've been trying to point out to you. Every one of the articles you've referenced, except the paper on chameleons and sandlances, has completely ignored or glossed over the environmental context against which these "revolutionary changes" need to be set, if you're going to understand them.

[schemanista]

Where can I go to get a real answer then? If it happened then don't tell me it appears to have happened. Tell me how you know it happened.
Stop reading Nature and start reading the peer-reviewed journals where the scientists publish their actual work. Be prepared for some splitting headaches and keep some evo-devo textbooks handy.

I take the easy way out: my sister is a postdoc fellow who's focussed on anti-scientific movements in Canadian history. Through her, I've got access to the entire biology department of a major university. I just get her colleagues liquored up and then the can't help explaining all the $25.00 words to me. Acutally, that's a lie. Most scientists will talk your friggin head off if you ask them an informed question about their field.

[Lurker]

Stop reading Nature and start reading the peer-reviewed journals where the scientists publish their actual work.
Nature claims to be the very thing you are asking me to read.

"NPG (Nature) is a dynamic, innovative, creative company, committed to publishing high quality, independently peer-reviewed research, review and reference material. NPG uses pioneering technologies, innovative formats and world class editing to provide premium yet readable information for scientific researchers in the public and private sectors, government agencies, educators and the general public."

[schemanista]

Stop reading Nature and start reading the peer-reviewed journals where the scientists publish their actual work.
Nature claims to be the very thing you are asking me to read.
I know. I'm finding it confusing. That pub has such a good rep yet you've linked to several articles which make me seriously question its editorial integrity.

Who can blame you for being confused about the state of evolutionary theory when so many of those articles have a "this is going to change everything!" slant to them. Ick.

I'll ask my sister to recommend a few.

[Another brick in the wall]

Keep in mind that these science magazines, like all other media, have an incentive to publish controversial items to boost readership. If you read other science magazines, you might get the impression that there are astounding new discoveries every week. Who would read an article titled "New experiment uncovers absolutely no new information" ?

[Lurker]

Keep in mind that these science magazines, like all other media, have an incentive to publish controversial items to boost readership. If you read other science magazines, you might get the impression that there are astounding new discoveries every week. Who would read an article titled "New experiment uncovers absolutely no new information" ?
So this is what it's come to? You can't trust the scientific journals now?!!?! Maybe I should start getting my science from People Mag. :/

[Lurker]

I noticed my post #103 went uncommented. Any comments as to why it went uncommented or do you have comments that you like share now that I brought it to your attention that it went uncommented - i.e. without comment. Comments? :|

[Lurker]

Define "very fast". Remember that gradualism doesn't mean slow. It means incremental. It means that changes occur across generations, or, to refute a common anti-evolutionary strawman, it emphatically does not mean that two monkeys had sex and gave birth to Lucy.
Very fast means almost immediately considering the split-from-ancestor date prior to the find of Chad man.

The latest estimates I can find assume that the hominids split from the ape ancestors somewhere about 5 million years ago. The first fully bipedal hominid dates to about 4 million years ago.
Most seem to agree that Chad man is bipedal. There's a huge amount of evolutionary change necessary to go from quadraped to biped. That pushes the split date back further – much further. Don’t know what effect this has on the timeline so perhaps you could explain.

[Metman07]

The Talk Origins “Fact and Theory FAQ” is helping to focus my thoughts a bit more. I see the theory part applies to the unknown mechanism - the "how did it happen" part. We have all these different theories based on the evidence we’ve found and somehow we’re supposed to make all the puzzle pieces fit together using science.

By design, science is restricted to physicalism/materialism and that limits our pool of potential theories to select from. The question is – are there other theory pools outside physicalism/materialism that we could pull from? Science can’t answer that question despite the attempts by many to use science to prove science - you can't. To answer that question we’ve got to walk over to the philosophy department (that’s you Rhinoq).

As you can imagine, I’ve seen some decent philosophical arguments to suggest there is more to this universe than physical stuff. You seem to find these arguments lacking which explains why your theory of the unknown evolutionary mechanism is limited to physics while my theory allows metaphysics.
I