Do you believe in evolution?

[invest07]

According to evolutionary theory, every fossil should be in transition from parent to child. And the actual percent of transitional fossils is less than 1% and most of those are disputed. There are no where near enough of these and most that are presented as transitions are in serious dispute. The "missing links" have never been found. And I think they never will be found because they don't exist.
Gould and Eldridge cooked up Punctuated Equilibrium to try to explain this. I have reseasrched this topic and if you would like my findings concerning PE and the American Indians, send me an EMail.
rljdyates@aol.com

 

[invest07]

Microeveolution requires no speciation and can be explained fully by natural selection. Macroeveolution requires beneficial genetic mutations that result in a improvement to a species.
MicroE has been observed in nature and is well documented.
MacroE has never been observed in the wild nor has it been simulated in the lab. MacroE is a theory and unproven. And many of the assumptions upon which MacroE is based are dubious and mathematically improbable.

 

[Coyote]

Microeveolution requires no speciation and can be explained fully by natural selection. Macroeveolution requires beneficial genetic mutations that result in a improvement to a species.
MicroE has been observed in nature and is well documented.
MacroE has never been observed in the wild nor has it been simulated in the lab. MacroE is a theory and unproven. And many of the assumptions upon which MacroE is based are dubious and mathematically improbable.

Just to put things into perspective here....

3,800 million years ago - the earliest documented microfossils of life
145 million years ago - the earliest primitive mammels
1.8 million years - evolution of anatomically modern humans
9,500 years ago (approx) - the earliest known human civilizations, pre-literate
4,000 years ago - first literate human civilization
148 years ago - 1859 Darwin's Origin of the Species

Mankind is barely a blip in the radar of the geological timescale of life. What on earth makes you think we've been around long enough to witness or recongnize macro-evolution much less duplicate it in a lab? Even evolutionary changes that appear to occur rapidly do so only relative to the geological timescale.

 

[Coyote]

Actually...I might be wrong about "speciation" and simulated in a laboratory condition. I found the following reference much to my surprise:

In 1964, Dr. D. J. Reish removed 5 or 6 polychaetes (Nereis acuminata) from Los Angeles/Long Beach Harbor, and grew his sample to a size of thousands. In 1986, four pairs from this group were brought to Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution; the population at Woods Hole thus had gone through two bottlenecks, which are supposed to help drive evolution through genetic drift. In 1977-1978, two new cultures of N. acuminata were gathered from nearby Long Beach and Newport Beach, and grown under the same conditions as the Woods Hole sample. The three populations were later crossed, and it was found that the only crosses that would not produce viable offspring were the crosses involving the Woods Hole culture and the two new cultures. This signifies nothing less than speciation, and all in the laboratory as well. (Weinberg et al. 1992)

 

[9sublime]

Just to put things into perspective here....

3,800 million years ago - the earliest documented microfossils of life
145 million years ago - the earliest primitive mammels
1.8 million years - evolution of anatomically modern humans
9,500 years ago (approx) - the earliest known human civilizations, pre-literate
4,000 years ago - first literate human civilization
148 years ago - 1859 Darwin's Origin of the Species

Mankind is barely a blip in the radar of the geological timescale of life. What on earth makes you think we've been around long enough to witness or recongnize macro-evolution much less duplicate it in a lab? Even evolutionary changes that appear to occur rapidly do so only relative to the geological timescale.

Damn right. And also, notice that life has evolved from very basic to very advanced, but opponents of evolution still don't believe that species can evolve from simple cells to humans?

 

[Coyote]

Damn right. And also, notice that life has evolved from very basic to very advanced, but opponents of evolution still don't believe that species can evolve from simple cells to humans?

That's because they were all created at one time 3,000 years ago don't ya know....

 

[Dave]

That's because they were all created at one time 3,000 years ago don't ya know....

Once again, you are attacking a straw man. Nobody here is arguing creationism. Maybe its easier to make jokes than actually debating the points that are being raised.

 

[palerider]

1.8 million years - evolution of anatomically modern humans

The earliest anatomically modern human remains are barely 100K years old. Previous HOMINIDS were entirely separate species that appeared, lived for a while and went extinct. Many lived during the same time span. No evidence of human evolution.

 

[TruthAboveAll]

Just to put things into perspective here....

3,800 million years ago - the earliest documented microfossils of life
145 million years ago - the earliest primitive mammels
1.8 million years - evolution of anatomically modern humans
9,500 years ago (approx) - the earliest known human civilizations, pre-literate
4,000 years ago - first literate human civilization
148 years ago - 1859 Darwin's Origin of the Species

Mankind is barely a blip in the radar of the geological timescale of life. What on earth makes you think we've been around long enough to witness or recongnize macro-evolution much less duplicate it in a lab? Even evolutionary changes that appear to occur rapidly do so only relative to the geological timescale.

Actually, the first literate human civilization was not 4,000 years ago. The earliest recorded item happens to be an Egyptian calender dated 4241 BC. Add the 2000 years since to it. (We'll toss out the extra 7 years to cover the disputations about when exactly the dating system went from BC to AD.) If my addition is right, that makes it 6241 years. I'm going way out on a limb here and saying that there must have been a level of literacy if a calendar was actually in use.

Since the time of Darwin, there is no question that man has made tremendous advances in nearly every field, and our knowledge has been increasing at unimaginable rates. Short of a few very futuristic-minded individuals, the forefathers of the US would be totally stunned if they were to be suddenly transported into todays' world.

Which leads to a very strong note of caution: With all the trillions, billions, millions of years that is accepted to be proven by current scientific methodology it would be wise for us to consider that our foundational summaries might not be correct. And as far as life on earth is concerned, we will never know that with certainty.

This leads to some additional questions: If the suppositions are wrong, how do we justify teaching it as fact? Why are we teaching it at all? Whether by intelligent design or evolution, does it matter one iota to the average K-12 student? What bearing does the whole issue have on anything, in reality? Why is it that so many are so intent on convincing others that we are simply something that has evolved, with no true meaning or intrinsic value?

 

[Sgt Schultz]

This leads to some additional questions: If the suppositions are wrong, how do we justify teaching it as fact? Why are we teaching it at all? Whether by intelligent design or evolution, does it matter one iota to the average K-12 student? What bearing does the whole issue have on anything, in reality? Why is it that so many are so intent on convincing others that we are simply something that has evolved, with no true meaning or intrinsic value?

Maybe it's because it is one of the basic tenants of modern science. An understanding of which is important in this modern world. It only seems to be an issue here in the US while the rest of the world will pass us by when it comes to scientific literacy.

 

[palerider]

Maybe it's because it is one of the basic tenants of modern science. An understanding of which is important in this modern world. It only seems to be an issue here in the US while the rest of the world will pass us by when it comes to scientific literacy.

Following the crowd, or leading the crowd where they want you to lead them for that matter, hardly qualifies as scientific literacy.

And I find it somewhat sad that you would think that an unprovable, and unsupportable theory is one of the basic tenets of modern science. And understanding or not understanding whether or not macroevolution happened or not will not make a single contribution to anything. At best, it is trivia. Cold fusion, a cure for cancer, a simple and cheap way to process clean water for 2/3 of the people on earth that have never had a taste of it...those are important to the modern world. Evolution wouldn't even make the top 100 of things that are most important to the modern world.

 

[Coyote]

Actually, the first literate human civilization was not 4,000 years ago. The earliest recorded item happens to be an Egyptian calender dated 4241 BC. Add the 2000 years since to it. (We'll toss out the extra 7 years to cover the disputations about when exactly the dating system went from BC to AD.) If my addition is right, that makes it 6241 years. I'm going way out on a limb here and saying that there must have been a level of literacy if a calendar was actually in use.

My apologies for the incorrect figure. However, on a geological timescale that extra 2241 years doesn't even show up.

Since the time of Darwin, there is no question that man has made tremendous advances in nearly every field, and our knowledge has been increasing at unimaginable rates. Short of a few very futuristic-minded individuals, the forefathers of the US would be totally stunned if they were to be suddenly transported into todays' world.

Which leads to a very strong note of caution: With all the trillions, billions, millions of years that is accepted to be proven by current scientific methodology it would be wise for us to consider that our foundational summaries might not be correct. And as far as life on earth is concerned, we will never know that with certainty.

All geological reckonings are generally cautioned with a plus/minus a thousand years or so. Also - note, I started the reckoning here with first recorded fossils. Could have been life before that but no fossil record. However - the reckonings while perhaps not precise are well within the ballpark and backed by a good bit of data. 3,800 million years is not going to magically transform itself into 3,000 years.

This leads to some additional questions: If the suppositions are wrong, how do we justify teaching it as fact?

Because the exact details may be in dispute does not mean the suppositions are wrong.

Why are we teaching it at all? Whether by intelligent design or evolution, does it matter one iota to the average K-12 student? What bearing does the whole issue have on anything, in reality? Why is it that so many are so intent on convincing others that we are simply something that has evolved, with no true meaning or intrinsic value?

What is the purpose of science? A big part of it is to help us understand the world around us. What's wrong with that? Are you advocating a return to a flat earth mentality here?

 

[Coyote]

Once again, you are attacking a straw man. Nobody here is arguing creationism. Maybe its easier to make jokes than actually debating the points that are being raised.

Maybe you didn't notice I have been debating the actual points?

 

[Coyote]

The earliest anatomically modern human remains are barely 100K years old. Previous HOMINIDS were entirely separate species that appeared, lived for a while and went extinct. Many lived during the same time span. No evidence of human evolution.

Actually - two skulls found near the Omo River in Ethiopia in 1967 by Richard Leakey and originally thought to be about 130,000 years old have now been dated at 195,000 years, the oldest date known for a modern human skull. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-02/uou-toh021105.php

According to many paleontologists and anthropologists, there is evidence of human evolution. There is a fine transition between modern humans and australopithecines and other hominids and this transition is gradual enough that it is not always clear where to draw the line between human and not.

There are plenty of intermediate fossils to support this:

Australopithecus afarensis, from 3.9 to 3.0 million years ago (Mya). Its skull is similar to a chimpanzee's, but with more humanlike teeth. Most (possibly all) creationists would call this an ape, but it was bipedal.

Australopithecus africanus (3 to 2 Mya); its brain size, 420-500 cc, was slightly larger than A. afarensis, and its teeth yet more humanlike.

Homo habilis (2.4 to 1.5 Mya), which is similar to australopithecines, but which used tools and had a larger brain (650-cc average) and less projecting face.

Homo erectus (1.8 to 0.3 Mya); brain size averaged about 900 cc in early H. erectus and 1,100 cc in later ones. (Modern human brains average 1,350 cc.)

A Pleistocene Homo sapiens which was "morphologically and chronologically intermediate between archaic African fossils and later anatomically modern Late Pleistocene humans" (White et al. 2003, 742).

A hominid combining features of, and possibly ancestral to, Neanderthals and modern humans (Bermudez de Castro et al. 1997).

And there are fossils intermediate between these.

 

[9sublime]

Palerider, don't you find it slightly bizzare that creatures would come into existence, die out, and then taking their place are extremely similair humans.