Evolution, what evidence is there and what does creationism have?

[painted wolf]

I find that my particular style of dealing with people questioning evolution is helpful in this regard.
Calling people stupid or uneducated or blindly faithful or the host of other things I've heard... only make people harden on their position and feel justified in their stance.

wa:do

 

[OmarKhayyam]

To each his own and you are certainly entitled to yours.


But I note that your approach rests on an unspoken assumption. An assumption we have found (sadly found) to be largely unfounded.

 

[painted wolf]

All I know.. is that if wasn't as thick skinned about my faith as I am... I could take some of the words of certain posters very badly.

I think it needs to be pointed out that this isn't a battle between faith and atheism... (this is one of the biggest misconceptions that creationists have)... but a battle between science and pseudoscience.

Many people of faith only feel justification when under attack... it affirms their faith and the warnings of the woo-peddlers. This needs to be avoided at all costs IMHO. The creationist preachers only grow stronger by it.

Also, you have to remember that I've been on this particular forum a lot longer than most... I'm a grey muzzle... and I've gotten to know a lot of members over the years and I've seen many of them grow in many ways over that time.

I'm not saying that the die hard "no evidence will ever be enough" woo-sters aren't around here... there are plenty of them... but I think it's worth trying to deal with each person as an individual for the chance to get someone reasonable.

idealistic yes... but I think it's the only real way for science to overcome pseudoscience.

wa:do

 

[OmarKhayyam]

"I think it needs to be pointed out that this isn't a battle between faith and atheism... (this is one of the biggest misconceptions that creationists have)... but a battle between science and pseudoscience."

I know YOU feel that way. And doubtless many others as well. And as simple matter of fact you are correct.

BUT:

But when "faith" says 'believe man was made in God's image by God's own hand in a single act of divine Creation or burn forever' what room is there for anything but belief?

 

[painted wolf]

well for one... what image? Spiritual or physical? Allegory or literalist?
A great many christian denominations see the OT as allegory and lessons to learn by rather than as hard fact. Few of them are so hard core as to consign people to hell for doubting that snakes can talk.

Most 'creationists' are actually very weak creationists.... as is shown by the widely varying numbers of 'creationists' depending on how you phrase the question to them.
I like to take care as to how I phrase my discussions with creationists for just such a reason.

wa:do

 

[emiliano]

Do you understand the theory of evolution?

If you are referring to mutations that result in a new species as evolution, the answer is no I don't understand, what I believe is that species and in the case of humans has had changes over time; for example I don't understand natural selection and the existence of apes and humans at the same point in time, if walking on two instead of four gave an ape like creature some survival advantage why there are apes still walking on all four? The other thing that I have trouble with is the resistance in nature to the changed creatures/hybrids ability to propagate most known specimens are mules. As for example the result of hose crossed donkey, or Canary crossed Finch. In other word I do not believe in Macro-evolution.

 

[themadhair]

In other word I do not believe in Macro-evolution.

So can you point out where the barrier to macro-evolution is in the following skulls?

 

[emiliano]

Which of those are human... and which are 'just apes'.
What is a human and what is an ape.... why are they different?
No, I'm asking you what the difference between an ape and a human is. Ape is not a species it's not even a genus... It's a much broader category.
Yes, and such things leave distinctive traces on the bones... none of which are found in these healthy individuals.
So there was a separate creation for wolves and foxes and coyotes and dingos?
If so, then yes... you don't accept evolution.
Yes, as a biologist I have seen examples of Macro and Microcephaly... enough to know that the deformities are not the same as the healthy skull of a Homo erectus or Australopithecus.
Though creationists have lately been trying to shoe-horn these fossils into that category it is only because they don't actually have the medical or paleontological or biological knowledge to know better... or the honesty to admit it.

wa:do
[/font][/color]

I don’t really know how to put this better but what I am saying is that modern humans evolved from humans that looked different to what you see today.
We have spent some time on the evidence that Jose presented, that the two short chromosomes in Chips can form a single one that it is the some size as the other and that would account for human genetic composition, Joselito wrote: All of the other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, whereas humans have 23 pairs. That begs the question: If we’re descended from a common ancestor, how do we account for this difference in chromosome number? Obviously, if common descent is accurate there must have been either a fusion of two separate chromosomes in the human line or fission of a chromosome in the ape line. And he knows a lot about these things, so that is evolution’s evidence; if Jose says that that the way life began you must believe it because Jose knows best. Then he goes on with the telomeres, pre-telomere and if that does not impress you nothing ever will. To me that bring more questions than answers, for example “If we’re descended from a common ancestor” What common ancestor? to me humans descended from humans and Chimps from Chimps. Looking at fossils and considering that in today’s humans we see such diversity of skulls what you ask is and impossibility to someone that does know about Chimp skulls, don’t know, how do you separate (draw the line) between ugly/malformed humans and apes? As far as I can tell Chimps have a different genome, monkeys and lemurs also have their particular genome, Don’t they? How many Home Sapient fossils do scientists have? How many humans looking lemurs do they have? What traces of defect are there?

 

[themadhair]

“If we’re descended from a common ancestor” What common ancestor?

That would be the first skull in this sequence:

to me humans descended from humans and Chimps from Chimps.

See the above skulls.

Looking at fossils and considering that in today’s humans we see such diversity of skulls what you ask is and impossibility to someone that does know about Chimp skulls, don’t know, how do you separate (draw the line) between ugly/malformed humans and apes?

Do you know any currently existing human skulls that are malformed that don’t show signs of disease, etc?

As far as I can tell Chimps have a different genome, monkeys and lemurs also have their particular genome, Don’t they?

Human and chimp genomes are far far FAR more similar than chimp and lemur genomes.

How many Home Sapient fossils do scientists have?

Scientists have lots of hominid fossils showing how human beings arose from a non-human ancestor. Wot’s a ‘Home Sapient’????

How many humans looking lemurs do they have?

The question doesn’t strictly make sense. The fossils detailing the transition from ‘lemur-like’ (to use your phrase) to more ape-like to human-like to humans have been found though.

What traces of defect are there?

Pretty much none. I can’t stress how terrible an argument this is. The first Neanderthal fossils were ascribed to be men suffering from rickets by the creationists. The problem is that none of the signs of rickets were present, and now that Neanderthal DNA has been sequenced we know that Neanderthals were not rickets sufferers, they simply weren’t human.

 

[emiliano]

To Themadhair.
To me this isn’t any more credible than stating that frogs will evolve into princes in billions of years to come, no more than I can believe that billions of years ago princes looked like frogs.

 

[Nepenthe]

To Themadhair.
To me this isn’t any more credible than stating that frogs will evolve into princes in billions of years to come, no more than I can believe that billions of years ago princes looked like frogs.

Then you're being willfully obstinate. What part of themadhair's reponse do you not understand?

 

[themadhair]

To me this isn’t any more credible than stating that frogs will evolve into princes in billions of years to come, no more than I can believe that billions of years ago princes looked like frogs.

How does that give you grounds to pretend the following fossil evidence doesn’t exist?

 

[painted wolf]

“If we’re descended from a common ancestor” What common ancestor?

The closest we have gotten to the shared common ancestor is a fossil named Toumai (he isn't on the picture list)
Sahelanthropus tchadensis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
At seven million years old he is just before the genetic split between humans and chimps that happened 6 million years ago.
One very cool thing about genetics is that we can actually date some of the mutations that have happened such as the fusion event.

to me humans descended from humans and Chimps from Chimps.

Yes, and before "humans" and "chimps" we had a common ancestor that was neither. Like Toumai.

Looking at fossils and considering that in today’s humans we see such diversity of skulls what you ask is and impossibility to someone that does know about Chimp skulls, don’t know, how do you separate (draw the line) between ugly/malformed humans and apes?

Humans are actually very low in diversity....
I know you haven't studied the differences between humans, apes and the fossil hominids... but you are making a definitive statement about human evolution...
How can you do that without knowing about the evidence?
How can you say "humans are humans" and "apes are apes"... if you haven't studied them?

As far as I can tell Chimps have a different genome, monkeys and lemurs also have their particular genome, Don’t they?

We all have modifications of the same genome. By looking at and dating those modifications we can tell how long ago we shared an ancestor.
It's the same way they can tell who the father of a child is...
Humans and chimps are virtually identical in our genomes... less than 2% different.
Humans and chimps are closer to each other than either is to say a Gorilla.... and all three are closer than any of them are to Lemurs.... our last common ancestor with them was more than 40 million years ago. (and likely something like Ida, Darwinius masillae )

How many Home Sapient fossils do scientists have?

I'm not sure exactly what you are asking... Are you talking about modern humans Homo sapiens? or all of the Homo genus? sapiens, neanderthal, erectus, habilis, ergaster, [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][SIZE=-1]heidelbergensis[/SIZE][/FONT]... you get the idea.
We have a lot of fossils. For neanderthals alone we have over 40 healthy adults, plus old individuals, infants, children... some that were sick.... it's pretty amazing

How many humans looking lemurs do they have?

Again I'm not sure what you are asking....

What traces of defect are there?

Very few... we see the occasional individual who had broken bones, or infections... bones are very good at leaving clear traces of injury and sickness... Teeth record diet and if the individual was ever lacking in enough food...
If you are talking genetic illness like microcephaly... those leave very distinctive skeletal features that are not seen.. and have never been seen in any fossil homonid.

If you like I can go through the fossil hominids and help you learn about them.

wa:do

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Joselito wrote: All of the other great apes have 24 pairs of chromosomes, whereas humans have 23 pairs. That begs the question: If we’re descended from a common ancestor, how do we account for this difference in chromosome number?

Yea...but this kind of question is an old one.....and it has been answered over and over again........:sarcastic

YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution

Please go and do some real research.........

 

[themadhair]

YouTube - Ken Miller on Human Evolution

Ken Miller testified in the Dover trial and the genetic evidence detailing the fusion formed part of his testimony. The defence, the side representing intelligent design, didn't even attempt to touch it.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Ken Miller testified in the Dover trial and the genetic evidence detailing the fusion formed part of his testimony. The defence, the side representing intelligent design, didn't even attempt to touch it.

I remember..some time ago watching the special that was done on the trial. I found it interesting.......

One of the things Ken says in that 4 to 5 minute snipet is that the information he's presenting is "testable".....

 

[Jose Fly]

Emiliano,

We have spent some time on the evidence that Jose presented, that the two short chromosomes in Chips can form a single one that it is the some size as the other and that would account for human genetic composition,

It accounts for how humans can have 23 pairs of chromosomes and chimps can have 24 pairs, even though they both share a common ancestry.

if Jose says that that the way life began you must believe it because Jose knows best

????? I didn't say anything about how life began. Further, I did not rely at all on my say-so, but instead demonstrated how the data fits the explanation.

To me that bring more questions than answers, for example “If we’re descended from a common ancestor” What common ancestor?

We do not have to specifically identify a common ancestor before we can determine that two species are related. Just like we can take two people and determine via genetics that they are siblings, even though the father is unknown.

how do you separate (draw the line) between ugly/malformed humans and apes?

As has been explained to you multiple times, humans are apes. You need to start using the terminology correctly and specify exactly what you mean by "ape".

As far as I can tell Chimps have a different genome, monkeys and lemurs also have their particular genome, Don’t they?

Of course. Why wouldn't they? If humans and chimps had the exact same genome, they would be the same species.

How many Home Sapient fossils do scientists have?

You haven't looked?

How many humans looking lemurs do they have?

????????

 

[emiliano]

To Jose,

It accounts for how humans can have 23 pairs of chromosomes and chimps can have 24 pairs, even though they both share a common ancestry.

Humans are just that, Humans and what makes them humans is that they have 23 pairs of chromosomes, what proofs is there that this is because the short pairs fused? As far as I can see this is just Jose says so.

We do not have to specifically identify a common ancestor before we can determine that two species are related. Just like we can take two people and determine via genetics that they are siblings, even though the father is unknown.

This is just another Jose says so statement. It seems to me that you make the rules so as to get the answer that you want and of course you don’t have to specify anything after all you make your own rules.

As has been explained to you multiple times, humans are apes. You need to start using the terminology correctly and specify exactly what you mean by "ape".

Why should I? Jose says so? As I have s responded before you my be an ape, not me, I believe that I am a human being create as such and the crown of God’s creation, the apple of his eyes.

Of course. Why wouldn't they? If humans and chimps had the exact same genome, they would be the same species.

Again humans are humans and Chimps are Chimps.Both have been sequenceed and co-exist.

 

[emiliano]

Humans are actually very low in diversity....

Humans come in a variety of colors, facial bone structure, stature, walk gait, the length of their arms and legs, you have Negroes, Asian, Chinese, Semites, blonds, red or black hairs, Albinos, etc, etc.

 

[emiliano]

I am certain of ID and it has been well defended by Michael Behe.
Random evolution works well up to the species level, perhaps to the genus and family level too. But at the level of vertebrate classes (birds, fish, etc), the molecular developmental programs needed would be beyond the edge of evolution. Darwinian evolution works well when a single small change in an organism’s DNA produces a notable effect. That’s what happens to give the various breeds of dogs. But when multiple, coordinated changes are needed for an effect, chance mutation loses its power.

I like this one: If you and a friend walked by Mount Rushmore, even if you had never heard of it before, you would immediately realize that the faces on the mountain were designed. Not for a moment would you think they were the result of random forces such as wind and erosion. Your conclusion of design would be certain, because you would see how well the pieces of the mountain fit the purpose of portraying an image.
Whenever we perceive a “purposeful arrangement of parts” we suspect design. The more parts there are, and the more clearly they fit the purpose, the more confident our conclusion of design becomes. In the past fifty years science has discovered a very purposeful arrangement of parts in the cell’s molecular machinery. That is the evidence for the involvement of a designer in life on earth.
http://calitreview.com/260