New 'on-line museum' challenges evolution

[Man of Faith]

The observations of genetic change over time provide some of the best evidence for common descent. Francis Collins is a committed Christian, a scientist, and former head of the human genome project, and he explains the incontrovertible evidence of common descent in genetic observations in many of his works, including 'The Language of God' (2006).

In addition, you may want to close your eyes lest you accidentally observe even more unobservable evidence of common descent:

Here's a fun science problem (40 points): (1) (a) identify the modern human skull; (b) identify the modern chimpanzee skull; (c) put the fossils in chronological order according to the geological record; finally, (d) explain the magical appearance and sudden disappearance of the other hominid species in the fossil record, since we know they couldn't be related to each other.

Solution:

Spoiler: Solution:

The modern human skull is at the end, labeled 'N'. The modern chimp skull is at the beginning, labeled 'A'. Except for the chimp skull, the fossils are already in chronological order from 'B' - 'N'. Since we know that common descent is imaginary, B could not have evolved into C, C into D, and so on until skull N. Otherwise, we would have to admit that humans (N) could have evolved from earlier ancestors (B) which share a common ancestor with chimps (A). To avoid this absurd conclusion, it follows that B must have magically appeared and then magically and suddenly disappeared, and their disappearance happened to coincide with the appearance of the separate species labeled by C. Then C disappeared and D magically appeared, and so on, until humans supernaturally came into existence when all the creatures labeled by M disappeared.

The fossil record does not show any fossils that have any ancestor or descendant relationships to any other fossil, that is according to talkorigins.

 

[Man of Faith]

I agree entirely. If we based our current teaching solely on what Darwin said, we wouldn't get very far. No Mendelian genetics, molecular clocks...

There isn't really such a thing as 'Darwinian evolution'. Darwin was the guy who got the ball rolling. The subject has progressed enormously over the past 150 years.

And if Darwin was wrong, then the whole shebang is wrong, but nobody will let anyone say that and keep their job.

 

[Tristesse]

And if Darwin was wrong, then the whole shebang is wrong, but nobody will let anyone say that and keep their job.

Actaully, darwin was wrong about genetics. As a matter of fact, if darwin were here to see the progress of our understanding of evolution today, it would be almost unrecognizable to him. Darwin had some good ideas, but our understanding of evolution has come a long way from darwins time. So, don't try and make this some sort of conspiracy thing, because thats not at all what it is.

 

[outhouse]

The fossil record does not show any fossils that have any ancestor or descendant relationships to any other fossil, that is according to talkorigins.

talk origins are not scientist and know nothing on the subject

 

[Tristesse]

talk origins are not scientist and know nothing on the subject

Actually, the guy who runs that site is a scientist, and most of the information on there is pretty accurate.

 

[Man of Faith]

talk origins are not scientist and know nothing on the subject

Cool evolutionists are discounting talk origins now, we are making progress.

 

[outhouse]

Actually, the guy who runs that site is a scientist, and most of the information on there is pretty accurate.

I was under the impression by manoffaith it was a creation website.

by this statement

ancestor or descendant relationships to any other fossil, that is according to talkorigins.

 

[outhouse]

Cool evolutionists are discounting talk origins now, we are making progress.

i thought it was one of your creationist sites my bad, you have a link backing your statement?

how do you explain all the intermediate fossils for human evolution.

 

[Tristesse]

I was under the impression by manoffaith it was a creation website.

by this statement

No, talk origins has accurate information about science. It's run by a scientist who also happens to be an atheist. It's a good site, it dispells a lot of the myths that creationists seem to have about evolution.

 

[outhouse]

No, talk origins has accurate information about science. It's run by a scientist who also happens to be an atheist. It's a good site, it dispells a lot of the myths that creationists seem to have about evolution.

ya my bad. :sorry1:


why is he posting misinformation or was it manoffaiths interpretation

 

[Man of Faith]

i thought it was one of your creationist sites my bad


how do you explain all the intermediate fossils for human evolution.

I explain it by the definition of an intermediate fossil. An intermediate fossil is “a fossil that shows a mosaic of features to another fossil.”, meaning that they look similar to other fossils. An Ape fossil looks the most similar to human so an Ape fossil is an intermediate fossil to humans. A person has to assume evolution to be true before they label any fossil as intermediate.

 

[painted wolf]

talk origins are not scientist and know nothing on the subject

Orly? News to me.

And MoF you are wrong, they talk about ancestor-descendant relationships and the fossil record here: CC200: Transitional fossils

A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

Among others... so yes, there are clear ancestor-descendant relationships in the fossil record. Even according to Talk Origins.

wa:do

 

[outhouse]

I found it, manoffaith found it there but it was written by a creationist:yes: that i knew to be true.

pretty much misleading by manoffaith, bad creationist :slap:

Creationist Wayne Jackson quotes the paragraph to the left in an online article

Prominent Hominid Fossils


Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor.

here is the scientist rebuttle in the link below

A Response to Wayne Jackson

 

[painted wolf]

I explain it by the definition of an intermediate fossil. An intermediate fossil is “a fossil that shows a mosaic of features to other fossils.”, meaning that they look similar to other fossils. An Ape fossil looks the most similar to human so an Ape fossil is an intermediate fossil to humans. A person has to assume evolution to be true before they label any fossil as intermediate.

Close... but you are missing a bit here.

Archeopteryx is a transitional fossil because it has a mosaic of features between modern birds and dinosaurs (Theropods in particular)... There really isn't any interpretation needed... it has birds feathers and a theropod body.

wa:do

 

[Alceste]

This is the most honest site I've seen questioning evolution actually(I don't look at many). I haven't really seen many straw-mans and I haven't seen the word God anywhere. I doesn't bother me too much

You must be kidding - all the standard lies are rehashed. That the Cambrian explosion was "sudden", that radiometric dating is inaccurate, that geological evidence suggests a young earth, that evolution is "in crisis", the "irreducable complexity" canard...

Not mentioning god doesn't give creationists a free pass for blatant lying in my books.

 

[Man of Faith]

I found it, manoffaith found it there but it was written by a creationist:yes: that i knew to be true.

pretty much misleading by manoffaith, bad creationist :slap:

Creationist Wayne Jackson quotes the paragraph to the left in an online article

Prominent Hominid Fossils


Despite this, there is little consensus on what our family tree is. Everyone accepts that the robust australopithecines (aethiopicus, robustus and boisei) are not ancestral to us, being a side branch that left no descendants. Whether H. habilis is descended from A. afarensis, africanus, both of them, or neither of them, is still a matter of debate. It is possible that none of the known australopithecines is our ancestor.




A Response to Wayne Jackson

You lost me. What are you refuting?

 

[Alceste]

Genetic change over time is observable, but common descent is not.

Every time we observe speciation, we observe common descent. We have observed speciation in a lab and in nature. Several examples here: Some More Observed Speciation Events

When two populations of a single species diverge to the extent that they can no longer interbreed, we get NEW species with the original population as a "common ancestor".

By engaging your gray matter, you can formulate by these observations the hypothesis that ALL living organisms could have a common ancester. As it turns out, DNA evidence indicates this notion is true. Fossil evidence supports it. NO evidence of any kind supports an alternative hypothesis involving the sudden appearance of diverse life a few thousand years ago.

I don't give a crap if you choose faith over reason. That's your prerogative. The attacks on reason are what get on my nerves. Can't creationists just say "I know there is no evidence for my views but I choose faith over reason" and get on with their lives?

 

[Man of Faith]

Every time we observe speciation, we observe common descent. We have observed speciation in a lab and in nature. Several examples here: Some More Observed Speciation Events

When two populations of a single species diverge to the extent that they can no longer interbreed, we get NEW species with the original population as a "common ancestor".

By engaging your gray matter, you can formulate by these observations the hypothesis that ALL living organisms could have a common ancester. As it turns out, DNA evidence indicates this notion is true. Fossil evidence supports it. NO evidence of any kind supports an alternative hypothesis involving the sudden appearance of diverse life a few thousand years ago.

I don't give a crap if you choose faith over reason. That's your prerogative. The attacks on reason are what get on my nerves. Can't creationists just say "I know there is no evidence for my views but I choose faith over reason" and get on with their lives?

Two seperate species of birds doesn't men a bird came from any other type of form back in history. Can history be observed?

 

[painted wolf]

Two seperate species of birds doesn't men a bird came from any other type of form back in history. Can history be observed?

Are you implying nothing from the past can be understood?

I'd be careful with this line of reasoning... as it implies that you can't trust the Bible. After all you never saw anything in the Bible happen.

wa:do

 

[Mr Spinkles]

The fossil record does not show any fossils that have any ancestor or descendant relationships to any other fossil, that is according to talkorigins.

Please quote talkorigins claiming this.

You can see the relationships among the fossils I just showed you, it's as plain as day. You really should consider reading Francis Collins' work, like I said he is a committed Christian and he's a highly respected expert on DNA.