Evolution and Creationism

[sunsmountain]

Nothing evolves to a natural maximum potential, thats not how evolution works (for the thousandth time!)

You do not know what i meant with that, so how can you comment on what i said?

We have a free will to believe or not, why would a God make us that way and send us to hell not worshipping him? Thats kinda hypocrit.

So does God send us to hell or do we? Consider a man who is an alcoholic, yet he does not wish to see it. He loses his family, his job, etc. until he is alone. He feels as if he is in hell. Who sent that man to hell? Can he get out, go to a clinic and rehab, fight for his life and become an artist?

Although most people do not believe in God, they do believe there is more to life than just what we see.

[Steeven]

I don't believe there is something after this life. Make something from this one, live!

[LegionnaireX]

I mean, you can see the evolution of flight. Reptilian (Dinosaura actually) scales grew longer and slowly turned into feathers (likely for insulation). Then some of these feathers grew large enough for short glides and hops. Then the feathered reptiles with lighter bone structures could fly better and did better over a span of millions of years (thus creating hollow bones), finally reptiles/birds needed a better circulatory system and those with better hearts could fly longer. This is a simplified story, but we have fossil records for each stage, and each stage makes sense on its own. But sometimes evolution happens quickly and all of these changes happen soon. Too soon for statistics to account for properly. This could mean that some kind of God has a master plan written in our genes, or it could mean that we are missing some information.

The whole dinosaurs evolved into birds thing is mostly based upon assumption and little actuall evidence. Archeoraptor was a hoax, and Archaeoptryx might also be fake. But even when looking at the archaeoptryx fossil you can find that it is a prehistoric bird nothing else. A few species of birds today also have claws. And a few extinct types of birds had teeth. And also, this doesn't explain the origins of flight. As the Pterodactle (spelling) lived long before the supposed first dino-bird.


I must ask, why did they evolve into birds? Flight isn't neccessary. And a wing's structure is far different from an arm structure which they dino's would have had to have had to begin with. For this to happen, the whole body structure of the animal would have to undergo drastic changes. This probably would render inbetween stages useless. And also, how is it possible for scales to evolve into feathers? They are very different.

This is a simplified story, but we have fossil records for each stage, and each stage makes sense on its own.

Since when? This most likely is an assertion. Just like claiming there are transitional forms. Support your claim, or admit defeat.

You also claim that the evidence for evolution is solid. I challenge you to give me 5 solid arguements or facts that support how, why, when, where, evolution happens, occurs etc. And I also want you to come up with a list of transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are intermediates between 2 solid species. They show underdeveloped structures, because they are evolving from species to species. I also want an explanation to why fossils of different species appear suddenly and fully formed in the fossil record, instead of gradually over the layers of sediment as darwin himself predicted.

You evolutionists claim that you have overwhelming evidence. You go on to say that evolution is solid fact, thay creatonism is not possible, and absolutely didn't occur. These are complete assertions. Give me a list of transitional fossils WITH pictures that show mans GRADUAL change over time. And don't give me that crap about fossils not being able to form. That arguement is awfully convenient when faced with the question of why there are gaps where important transitional forms are supposed to be. You aren't going to claim that the fossil record has no gaps are you?

So does God send us to hell or do we?

People ultimatly send themselves to hell for there doings. Just as people ultimatly send themselves to heaven for there doings. God doesn't just send people to hell or to heaven. You have to deserve one or the other.

[Hunt57]

Originally posted by legionaireX@Sep 19 2004, 07:58 PM
The whole dinosaurs evolved into birds thing is mostly based upon assumption and little actuall evidence. Archeoraptor was a hoax, and Archaeoptryx might also be fake. But even when looking at the archaeoptryx fossil you can find that it is a prehistoric bird nothing else. A few species of birds today also have claws. And a few extinct types of birds had teeth. And also, this doesn't explain the origins of flight. As the Pterodactle (spelling) lived long before the supposed first dino-bird.

I must ask, why did they evolve into birds? Flight isn't neccessary. And a wing's structure is far different from an arm structure which they dino's would have had to have had to begin with. For this to happen, the whole body structure of the animal would have to undergo drastic changes. This probably would render inbetween stages useless. And also, how is it possible for scales to evolve into feathers? They are very different.

By the very definition of "dinosauria", even modern birds can actually be classified as dinosaurs. Aves, modern birds, were a branch of Therapods off of the Saurichian line of dinosauria. There is good evidence that many advanced Therapods (even large ones like T. rex) had feathers.

Feathers serve many purposes...insulation for one and body heat regulation. Many organisms classically considered "dinosaurs" had other bird-like developments like a pygostyle, a keeled sternum, additional cranial cavities.

There are many theories as to the evolution of flight, some arboreal and others considered "running" and "ground-up" theories. The "ground up" theories are very intriguing--it has been shown through observation of chickens that having feathers and flapping wings would allow an organism to "run" up steep slopes. This ability would've been very useful for small dinosaurs.

As for scales evolving to feathers...most birds have retained scales. If you were to pluck an emu or ostrich it would look a lot like what the majority would consider to be a dinosaur. Birds nowadays have lost their teeth in order to lighten the skull for flight. Before you say anything, it is well established that emus, ostriches and penguins have secondarily lost the ability to fly.

The pterosaurs' existance in the Triassic doesn't discount the evolution of aves. Why the hell did bats evolve 10,000s of years ago if there were established birds. Birds had many advantages that those flying reptiles didn't--they were capable of powered flight...pterosaurs only glided. Birds were warm-blooded and could live in a wide-variety of environs. Therefore, pterosaurs tended to live along the oceanside or other clif-like areas in tropical climates, while birds were able to live just about wherever they pleased.

To not see the benefit of evolving flight is pretty stupid. To say it isn't necessary is akin to saying that being multicellular isn't necessary. Bacteria did fine for millions, if not billions of years without us eukaryotes messing around. Flight enables the organism a faster mode of transport, allowing it to flee predators, find food easier, and to find more suitable living conditions.

As for the fossil record...let's face it: there are a lot of fossils yet to be uncovered. Still, many many fossils have been destroyed by geological activity. Fossils can really only be found in undisturbed sedimentary rock, which is rare. Even rarer would be an organism dying in situation that would lend itself to fast-fossilization. Not every critter in the past died in tar pits or in deserts, or undisturbed watering holes.

[Steeven]

What about our last living dinosaurs, sharks and crocodiles?

[Drexxus Maximus]

I'll ask this question again on this thread since we branched off from the "existence of god" thread where it was never really answered. Where did the Neandertals come from then? How does the bible explain them away? They were like us but not us at the same time. So are you saying god made two completley different species of man? US and THEM? I know christians are gonna say something like "they were the same thing." but come on, they WERE different. It would be absurd to argue that they were the same species as us. I thought this question would fit better in the evolution thread.

My whole flight scenario was just a quickie example of how evolution can occur (though I though hunt had a good post). As far as flight being necessary, necessary is really only a word you would use if their is a giant plan (perhaps their is), strict evolutionist would say that flight is advantageous therefore it evolved, and flight is advantageous (though admittedly expensive). And there is good evidence that scales evolved into feathers, just look at them in a microscope they have very similar basic structures. As far a changing wing structure rendering arms useless between stages, this isn't necessarily true. For a long time these arms could be used (even at a diminished functionality) and after a while the intern species probably relied on them less and less.

As far as my "assertion", I assumed the fact that fossils exist was common knowledge, and my statement about each stage making sense on its own was just an opinion, I kept it simple because as I said it was just a quickie example. As far as all the evidence for evolution check out the rest of the thread, I spend years taking biology and anthropology courses I can't distill that in a short paragraph (but one thing comes to mind: vestigial organs). BTW my major was business; I just took some advanced bio classes for fun.

As far as the fossil record having gaps, well of course it has gaps. As I said fossils are rare and miss out on a lot. Now for your transitional argument, this is interesting. If you read my post carefully (perhaps I didn't do a good job explaining), the transition between species does sometimes occur too fast to properly be explained by statistics as purely random mutation. Who knows why. My whole flight example was designed to give people a brief idea of how transitions can occur (you can do the same with marine mammals or tons of other things). We can see transitions in living animals. Look at birds, if you examine the beaks to two birds with very different beaks (say finches and parrots) and look at each of their closest relatives leading back to each other. You can see a small progression between each, and as a result each tends to eat a different type of food best suited to their beak (or perhaps the food changes the beak).

I don't think I did a great job explaining all this, as I said it's hard to condense years of knowledge in such a short time. I would also like to state that this doesn't disprove God or a greater power, although evolution may disprove the book of genesis if you take it literally. I didn't mean to sound combative legionaireX, I thought your post was fairly well constructed, but it did seem to be directed at me.

BTW ::ot:: some fun facts about Neanderthals. Neanderthals had a higher brain/mass ration, which is a classic determination for intelligence, than we do. Anthropologists believe this extra mass was probably dedicated to memory. Which was inefficient because we developed stories, education and writing to overcome our primitive memories. In addition we were not descended form Neanderthals like some people believe. Instead we shared a common ancestor, so were more like cousins. (ps I agree with you Drexx).

[Hunt57]

Originally posted by Steeven@Sep 19 2004, 09:26 PM
What about our last living dinosaurs, sharks and crocodiles?

They were both contemporaries of the dinosaurs, yes.

However, sharks weren't really related to dinosauria at all; they evolved from the common ancestor of fish and amphibians (who are thought to be closer related to fish than reptiles).

However, crocodiles are oddly enough the closest living relatives of today's birds. They both share a diapsid skull and also similaries in hip structures.

[Portuguese Rebel]

However, crocodiles are oddly enough the closest living relatives of today's birds. They both share a diapsid skull and also similaries in hip structures.

And a fully developed 4 cavity heart, while other reptils have a 3 cavity heart with a septum beguining to develop.

As for scales evolving to feathers...most birds have retained scales. If you were to pluck an emu or ostrich it would look a lot like what the majority would consider to be a dinosaur. Birds nowadays have lost their teeth in order to lighten the skull for flight. Before you say anything, it is well established that emus, ostriches and penguins have secondarily lost the ability to fly.

Feathers are perhaps originaly an adaptation to keep body temperature (they are very efficient at that). Flight came after feathers.

What about our last living dinosaurs, sharks and crocodiles?

Sharks are cartilagenous fish (Class Condrychthyes), not dinossaurs :cool

[Hunt57]

Originally posted by Portuguese Rebel@Sep 20 2004, 04:15 AM
And a fully developed 4 cavity heart, while other reptils have a 3 cavity heart with a septum beguining to develop.

Ah, yes I forgot that part. Been a bit since my honors course on Vertebrate Paleontology...a bit rusty.

[LegionnaireX]

As far as my "assertion", I assumed the fact that fossils exist was common knowledge,

Well, if it is common knowledge that the fossil record shows gradual change from dino-bird to modern bird than, why don't you go ahead and show some facts from the fossil record. Find pictures, fact files etc about bird evolution.

We can see transitions in living animals. Look at birds, if you examine the beaks to two birds with very different beaks (say finches and parrots) and look at each of their closest relatives leading back to each other. You can see a small progression between each, and as a result each tends to eat a different type of food best suited to their beak (or perhaps the food changes the beak).

There SUPPOSED common ancestor and closest relatives. I bet I could dig up the bones of many similiar looking people and draw the same conclusion that they all came from a common ancestor even if they lived on different continents.

Most "evidences" that you guys show are micro-evolution meaning small changes within a given species, they don't cross the species-genus barrier. For example, there are many varieties of beatle. Some are big, some are small, some have horns, some don't. But no matter how you look at it, they are all beatles. Same with finches. But can you trace the finch back to a different species which was the common ancestor? I doubt it. The different varietys of finch can be traced back to a common ancestor, which was the first finch. I don't think you can trace it back to a totally different animal.

btw, how can the wing evolve in the first place. It is one of the most complex systems. And according to evolution, it developed rapidly. How can this be?

(but one thing comes to mind: vestigial organs)

This arguement has been refuted many times. Vestigal organs serve many purposes. Some are used before birth, some aid other organs in the body, some reduce health risks etc. They aren't very useful, but are not totally useless. they have purposes.

the transition between species does sometimes occur too fast to properly be explained by statistics as purely random mutation.

But isn't it odd that most every fossil shows a fully formed animal. No under-developed organs etc? Just another thing, if random mutation is how evolution occures, then by your logic we should all have webbed feet. There are quite a few people with webbed feet in the world, and shouldn't those genes have spread throught the population by now?

Something else about flight theories. Genes are what cause mutation. And genes don't think. They have no consience. It couldn't have been pure mutation for evolution of flight to have occured. Evolution according to the athiestic world view says that evolution just happens, everything you see in the world is completely pointless and without meaning. I believe that takes a great leap of faith to believe in such a statement. Evolution itself says it envolves absolutely no "trying" to evolve. It is all random. Does this mean that because it is advantageful to fly that I can just hop around all day, and tell my offspring to hop around all day, and tell there offspring to hop around all day and etc. Will this eventually produce wings? Of course not.

Maybe microscopic cells can evolve, and even animals within a species can evolve due to the fact that they have the genes needed to do so. But to say that the wing, the arm, the human eye, the consience (spelling) of all animals and people, just randomly evolved for no meaning whatsoever with absolutely no outside help is quite far-fetched IMO. If it is a possibility that evolution occured for everything and everywhere, then it must also be a possibility that a tornado in a junk yard can randomly assemble a complete intact Boeing 747 Jet.

Also, what good does belief in no God and atheistic evolution do you? It brings nothing but fear, and despair. According to atheistic evolution, you are a pointless animal, living on a small blue rock in the darkness and loneliness of space, with nothing awaiting you after death, and no great force to help you in great times of need. I don't know how you guys live with yourselves. But in theism, you are here for a purpose! There is something wonderful awaiting you after death! And there is always a great force ready to help in times of need.

As far as transitions between species evolving rapidly, read my posts again: I’m not arguing with you over that. I think it is something to ponder. Some vestigial organs, bones… do have some purpose at one point, but many are completely useless, if you want to argue that fair enough. You can find some kind of use for anything if you look hard enough (I still don’t see how my tailbone helps me). Someone else can argue that if they want, I don’t feel like it at the moment.

“But isn't it odd that most every fossil shows a fully formed animal. No under-developed organs etc? Just another thing, if random mutation is how evolution occurs, then by your logic we should all have webbed feet. “

I’m not sure if you were arguing with me or not? After all the statement of mine that you quoted stated that the math may indicate that purely random mutation DIDN’T occur. And your argument was flawed. Webbed feet don’t help people survive or propagate (how does webbed feet help me get females? Thus creating children and passing on my genes). If we were in a world covered in water and webbing helped me swim faster and get more food then I would be more likely to breed and pass on the trait. And yes a tornado could build a functioning 747, the odds are just astronomical. But it is still calculatable if you take each individual action, figure the probability and then determine the probability of each sequence (it might be fun to figure, but I would need to design a program in C++ and I don’t have the knowledge by myself). Take an advanced statistics class, the “Law of Really Big Numbers” is fun, though the calculations are boring. And the odds for evolution aren’t that bad, but again as I said the hard math doesn’t completely justify it. There is enough of a margin in the calculations to leave some doubt at any rate (though it doesn’t prove it one way or another).

Going back to the whole fossil record thing. I used the bird example to show gradual change between species (something we can only show in living species, as fossils are too rare). These changes are slow and tend to only occur in an isolated environment, because when variants of a species commingle genes they dilute their differences. So you tend to get different species when you isolate them from each other. That’s why Darwin formulated his theory after visiting the Galapagos Islands. Because they were very isolated and he found animals that were very similar to those on the mainland, but that had evolved into distinct species.

“And genes don't think. They have no consience. It couldn't have been pure mutation for evolution of flight to have occured.”

That’s why I used the, admittedly simplified, example of flight. I tried to show how it is logical for various small (possibly random) changes to each have a purpose of their own, and when combined with other mutations can create greater structures. Each stage building on the other until we get a significant change. Perhaps I didn’t do a good job making sense, but it took me over a month of study and lectures to understand the evolution of flight. That’s the best simplification I can do. If someone can do a better job, please do.

“But isn't it odd that most every fossil shows a fully formed animal. No under-developed organs etc?”

Fossils almost never show organs, but they do show underdeveloped structures. In fact all life is composed of undeveloped or vestigial structures. And before you argue consider this: if this weren’t true then all species would be perfect from the beginning of time (or at least the first fossils). And if all life is perfect then why do we have change and extinction. Wouldn’t the same perfect form keep reappearing? All right that was a bit metaphysical, I apologize. As far as God, I’m not going to discuss that, that better belongs in the existence of god thread and is a separate issue. Although PS: I never claimed to be an atheist, but perhaps you were referring to someone else.

[Hunt57]

Originally posted by legionaireX@Sep 20 2004, 09:14 PM
This arguement has been refuted many times. Vestigal organs serve many purposes. Some are used before birth, some aid other organs in the body, some reduce health risks etc. They aren't very useful, but are not totally useless. they have purposes.

No, that actually the key sticking point about vestigal organs...they serve no purpose.

As for "proof" of macro evolution...take a look at whales. Whales often have hip bones (even legs) that are usually not even connected to the spine. What purpose do they serve? None; they are proof that the ancestors of Whales had legs.

How about horses and the development of the "hoof", which was concurrent to the development of grasslands. A single toed hoof in ultraplantar position allowed early equines to move faster and afforded them more stability in the muddy plains. Ancestors of the modern horse have been shown to have 3 to 5 toes.

How about the evolution of early sponges to intermediate forms of Radiata (Jellyfish) and the further development of Jellyfish species into a prominant medusa-stage?

There are also fossils depicting and intermediate between fish and amphibians. Organisms like panderichthyids display an amphibian skull lacking in fish.




The Eusthenopteron also has an amphibian skull, as well as a strong amphibian-like spine, along with a tetrapod-like tetrahedral humerus, and elbow and knee joints.



I could spout examples 'til I'm blue in the face, but there are examples of transitional forms. It's just too bad that the evolutionists are the ones that have to do the actual research to prove naysayers.

Like the pics Hunt. I was actually going to use the whale example as well and go through step by step, but I didn't feel like it.

"It's just too bad that the evolutionists are the ones that have to do the actual research to prove naysayers."

Sigh, so true.

[Rand Al Thor]

According to atheistic evolution, you are a pointless animal, living on a small blue rock in the darkness and loneliness of space, with nothing awaiting you after death, and no great force to help you in great times of need. I don't know how you guys live with yourselves.

You just pointed out why religion is popular today and will remain popular until we improve our education systems. People are afraid of what they do not know, to most people the unknowns are the most frightening things in their lives. Religious people try to comfort themselves by creating stories that they think will remove the unknowns. Atheists have learned to accept that they don't know everything about life or about the universe and they are ok with that.

Of course, all of this has nothing to do with evolution.

[Hunt57]

Originally posted by bolson9999@Sep 20 2004, 11:12 PM
Like the pics Hunt. I was actually going to use the whale example as well and go through step by step, but I didn't feel like it.

I really wish I could find pics of the tetrapod skeletons that we have at the Smithsonian here in D.C. Absolutely fantanstic specimens--you can make out the emergence of nearly every defining amphibian feature in those babies. They have an awesome comparative analysis of the skulls.

The prehistoric vertabrate exhibits there are top-notch...to biological science what the British Museum is to Ancient History.

Those pics would be cool. I've wanted to see the Smithsonian for years. I plan on traveling to the East Coast in about a year or two (and DC is top on my list, my favorite cousin works in DC for the gov). Stupid Californian museums :smile.

[BrooklynBagel]

"Give me that old time religion, gimme that old time religion, gimme that old time religion, cause its good enough for me."

I'm a believe in evilution, oops, I mean evolution. I'm more faithful to it than knowledgable unfortantly, but I should probably research some more to back-up my opinions. Anyone know a good place to check at?

[Rand Al Thor]

http://www.talkorigins.org/ is a good place for Evo/Creo info.