E
Ender
Guest
The human brain seems not to have changed one single bit since the first appearance of homo sapiens 150,000 years ago.
- Status
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Petrus << Phil, can you please post the link to that marvelous illustration of the whale sequence, unless it is proprietary? I’m giving a public lecture next week and would like to include that slide in my PowerPoint. >>
Sure, the link is here from my own site:
bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif
You might also note that this picture, taken from Carl Zimmer’s 1999 book At the Water’s Edge is a little out of date, since now there are closer to 30-40 whale intermediates, and the common ancestor is derived from the artiodactyls (Even-Toed ungulates) rather than mesonychids. Wikipedia has a good overview of cetacean evolution.
“The traditional theory of cetacean evolution was that whales were related to the mesonychids, an extinct order of carnivorous ungulates (hoofed animals), which looked rather like wolves with hooves and were a sister group of artiodactyls. These animals possessed unusual triangular teeth that are similar to those of whales. For this reason, scientists had long believed that whales evolved from a form of mesonychid.” (from the Wikipedia article)
See also the Thewissen article in 20 Dec 2007 NATURE for the latest evidence. I am not a scientist so I don’t necessarily understand all this stuff, but I can read the evidence for myself, as anyone can.
Phil P
Sure, the link is here from my own site:
bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif
You might also note that this picture, taken from Carl Zimmer’s 1999 book At the Water’s Edge is a little out of date, since now there are closer to 30-40 whale intermediates, and the common ancestor is derived from the artiodactyls (Even-Toed ungulates) rather than mesonychids. Wikipedia has a good overview of cetacean evolution.
“The traditional theory of cetacean evolution was that whales were related to the mesonychids, an extinct order of carnivorous ungulates (hoofed animals), which looked rather like wolves with hooves and were a sister group of artiodactyls. These animals possessed unusual triangular teeth that are similar to those of whales. For this reason, scientists had long believed that whales evolved from a form of mesonychid.” (from the Wikipedia article)
See also the Thewissen article in 20 Dec 2007 NATURE for the latest evidence. I am not a scientist so I don’t necessarily understand all this stuff, but I can read the evidence for myself, as anyone can.
Phil P
R
ricmat
Guest
I’m not a creationist, as I said above. I asked you a question that you couldn’t answer, so you automatically labeled me a creationist, even though I said that I wasn’t.
I thought you could get genes from any complete DNA strand, bones, blood, whatever. But I’m not a biologist.
My question was not invalid. The foundation of evolution is random mutations and natural selection. If you can’t tell me which mutations actually occurred (genes / DNA), then you have a huge hole in your theory.
Having genes in common with chimps proves nothing. We also have carbon, oxygen, phosphorus, and hydrogen in common with chimps…and fish…and trees.
Similar skull patterns prove nothing, unless you can prove that one actually evolved from the other. So which genes changed?
Look, I already said that I believe in most of evolution. But I leave the door open to other explanations. I’m basically playing devils advocate here.
What irritates me is that so many evolutionists refuse to admit that they don’t know everything. They scoff at “God of the gaps” but their own explanations amount to “Evolution absolutely positively did it…somehow.”
A pattern of similar characteristics means nothing. Look at Buicks and Oldsmobiles (Oldsmobuicks for short). If you found 2 buried in the sand you wouldn’t conclude that they evolved from each other just because they were similar.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Ender << The dorudon did not evolve into the basilosaurus or the mysticetes. There is nothing at all claiming any direct evolutionary lineage. All of the transitional species are theorized. >>
If you think they don’t have the skeletons, you are wrong. They were found in the same area, and dated at the right time (c. 50 million years ago). Here is the skeleton of Ambulocetus natans (“the walking whale that swims”), found in Pakistan, on the former shores of the Tethys sea separating the European archipelago from Africa and Asia:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/Ambulocetus.jpg
How do we know this is an early whale, or on its way to becoming a modern whale? Does it look like a modern whale? No. Here is how:
Q: How do we know that Ambulocetus is an early form of whale?
A: Ambulocetus’ teeth and skull structure shows that it is a whale. Many other fossils have been found showing early whales with varying sizes of leg and tail (e.g. Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, and the already well known Basilosaurus). The teeth of all of them, including those which were fully aquatic, are very similar, as are their ear structures. Whales separate their ears from the skull – they “float” in a region of fat. To get sound to the ear, modern whales have a partially hollow jaw that is filled with a special type of fat. When sound waves hit the jaw they are conducted through the fat to a thin bone connection to the ear from the back of the jaw. This thin bone connection has a characteristic “S” shape that is totally unique to the whales, and has proved to be so remarkable to paleontologists over the last two decades. Ambulocetus already had the S-shaped ear bone and had jaws that would have been packed with sound-conducting fat, despite the fact that they seemed to live mostly on land. This implies that the strange way of hearing had initially evolved not for hearing underwater, but for some other purpose (e.g. sensing prey on land).
Same goes for characteristics in all these whale intermediate species. All the evidence points to macroevolution, from the artiodactyls who lived on land, finally to the whales who adapted to the sea. They are not “theorized” in the sense you mean (i.e. “wild guess”). The study of the bone structure, chemical analysis, the place and dating where found, and vestigial legs/arms, etc shows why these are well accepted by science as whale intermediates.
I suggest reading Thewissen and Gingerich and look into the evidence if you have doubts. Begin with their many articles in the journals NATURE and SCIENCE.
Phil P
If you think they don’t have the skeletons, you are wrong. They were found in the same area, and dated at the right time (c. 50 million years ago). Here is the skeleton of Ambulocetus natans (“the walking whale that swims”), found in Pakistan, on the former shores of the Tethys sea separating the European archipelago from Africa and Asia:
http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/Ambulocetus.jpg
How do we know this is an early whale, or on its way to becoming a modern whale? Does it look like a modern whale? No. Here is how:
Q: How do we know that Ambulocetus is an early form of whale?
A: Ambulocetus’ teeth and skull structure shows that it is a whale. Many other fossils have been found showing early whales with varying sizes of leg and tail (e.g. Pakicetus, Rodhocetus, Dorudon, and the already well known Basilosaurus). The teeth of all of them, including those which were fully aquatic, are very similar, as are their ear structures. Whales separate their ears from the skull – they “float” in a region of fat. To get sound to the ear, modern whales have a partially hollow jaw that is filled with a special type of fat. When sound waves hit the jaw they are conducted through the fat to a thin bone connection to the ear from the back of the jaw. This thin bone connection has a characteristic “S” shape that is totally unique to the whales, and has proved to be so remarkable to paleontologists over the last two decades. Ambulocetus already had the S-shaped ear bone and had jaws that would have been packed with sound-conducting fat, despite the fact that they seemed to live mostly on land. This implies that the strange way of hearing had initially evolved not for hearing underwater, but for some other purpose (e.g. sensing prey on land).
Same goes for characteristics in all these whale intermediate species. All the evidence points to macroevolution, from the artiodactyls who lived on land, finally to the whales who adapted to the sea. They are not “theorized” in the sense you mean (i.e. “wild guess”). The study of the bone structure, chemical analysis, the place and dating where found, and vestigial legs/arms, etc shows why these are well accepted by science as whale intermediates.
I suggest reading Thewissen and Gingerich and look into the evidence if you have doubts. Begin with their many articles in the journals NATURE and SCIENCE.
Phil P
M
Memaw
Guest
If thats true, then where did the claim,(by some scientists), that man evolved from monkey, come from??
D
drpmjhess
Guest
I’ve never heard a scientist claim this. Where did you read it?
D
drpmjhess
Guest
Ricmat, you would be right not to conclude evolution, but you might conclude to common descent from the basic idea of automobiles.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
ric << Similar skull patterns prove nothing, unless you can prove that one actually evolved from the other. So which genes changed? >>
Already answered. Invalid question. You get gene data from blood, you don’t get genes from skulls. So to ask which genes changed from which skulls is an invalid question. The skulls show there is a clear ancestor-descendant relationship between chimps and modern humans, as evolution predicts. The analysis of the blood confirms that close relationship at the DNA or gene level, again as evolution predicts.
The articles I already linked show: (1) massive evidence for evolution at the molecular level (DNA, pseudogenes, etc), and (2) that evolution shows a prediction that has been confirmed: intermediates in the ape-human fossil record, called the “hominid” fossils. We do not need the exact line of descent (which appears to be what you want), we only need evidence of hominid intermediates, and that is what we have: fossils and species that are clearly BETWEEN apes/chimps and humans (homo sapiens), in size and shape, that have gone extinct (i.e. they don’t exist today). Paleoanthropologists argue over the exact line of descent from these hominids to modern humans (there are about 2 or 3 major models if I remember right).
Now evolution EXPLAINS this data: the close relationships between chimps, the hominids, and modern humans, and between ancient artiodactyls, the whale transitions, and modern whales for that matter. Creationism does NOT explain this data. I didn’t mean to imply you were a creationist.
Phil P
Already answered. Invalid question. You get gene data from blood, you don’t get genes from skulls. So to ask which genes changed from which skulls is an invalid question. The skulls show there is a clear ancestor-descendant relationship between chimps and modern humans, as evolution predicts. The analysis of the blood confirms that close relationship at the DNA or gene level, again as evolution predicts.
The articles I already linked show: (1) massive evidence for evolution at the molecular level (DNA, pseudogenes, etc), and (2) that evolution shows a prediction that has been confirmed: intermediates in the ape-human fossil record, called the “hominid” fossils. We do not need the exact line of descent (which appears to be what you want), we only need evidence of hominid intermediates, and that is what we have: fossils and species that are clearly BETWEEN apes/chimps and humans (homo sapiens), in size and shape, that have gone extinct (i.e. they don’t exist today). Paleoanthropologists argue over the exact line of descent from these hominids to modern humans (there are about 2 or 3 major models if I remember right).
Now evolution EXPLAINS this data: the close relationships between chimps, the hominids, and modern humans, and between ancient artiodactyls, the whale transitions, and modern whales for that matter. Creationism does NOT explain this data. I didn’t mean to imply you were a creationist.
Phil P
W
Wolseley
Guest
Oh, I don’t know. Remember Piltdown Man?
And then there’s all those artist’s reconstructions in the textbooks of what they think one hominid or another looked like, based on scattered bits of bone pieced together.
Shoot, all us iggerant hicks out here have been doin’ that fer years:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
R
ricmat
Guest
But that would require an actual previous common descendant - not just an idea.
P
PhilVaz
Guest
Ric << My question was not invalid. The foundation of evolution is random mutations and natural selection. If you can’t tell me which mutations actually occurred (genes / DNA), then you have a huge hole in your theory. >>
I take back some of what I said, because there was a recent article documenting the fusion point in the human DNA at the chromosome level, exactly where we differ from chimps, and it is based on DNA analysis and comparisons of the human and chimp genome. I don’t understand all the genetics science, but here are some explanations in simpler terms:
Alec’s Evolution Pages on fusion of two ancestral chromosomes
Ken Miller’s talk on this evidence for human evolution
So part of your question has been answered, and again it points to evolution.
Does this satisfy you somewhat?
Phil P
I take back some of what I said, because there was a recent article documenting the fusion point in the human DNA at the chromosome level, exactly where we differ from chimps, and it is based on DNA analysis and comparisons of the human and chimp genome. I don’t understand all the genetics science, but here are some explanations in simpler terms:
Alec’s Evolution Pages on fusion of two ancestral chromosomes
Ken Miller’s talk on this evidence for human evolution
So part of your question has been answered, and again it points to evolution.
Does this satisfy you somewhat?
Phil P
R
ricmat
Guest
I’m sorry, I missed the answer. Which genes changed?
I think that’s what is happening here is that you correctly see similarities between chimp and humans and conclude as a fact that evolution did it, somehow. But you don’t know how. How it happened is a key part of knowing the truth.
Yes, there is close similarity between chimp and human genes. The Oldsmobile and Buick have almost exactly the same parts, so one must have evolved from the other, just as evolution predicts.
OK, we have a massive disagreement here. Note: I’m not saying the conclusions are wrong at this point, but I am saying that you don’t have enough evidence to prove that random mutations and natural selection create complex life, or even that you have enough DETAILED evidence to prove ANY evolution from one complex life form to another. What you have is a pattern of simple life a long time ago and a gradual increase into complex life today. That doesn’t prove anything in terms of the mechanism behind those findings.
I agree that evolution “explains” this data. It just doesn’t explain it well. There are holes. The holes being “details of the mechanism.”
One could watch TV and see two people in Los Angeles at 8AM, Dallas at noon, Cleveland at 3PM, and Providence at 6PM. One could make a theory that "they walked in an easterly direction (more or less) to get to all these places. And the fact that we have recordings of them in these places at these times proves that my theory is correct. Your theory would “explain” how they got from place to place. But then some smart alek like me would ask "But how long does it take to walk from LA to Dallas? And Dallas to Cleveland? And Cleveland to Providence? And how much time does that all add up to?
Details are important, and if you want to prove that species A evolved, by gene mutation, into species B, then you need to talk about gene mutations. Otherwise it’s an “evolution did it, somehow” thing. Which is sort of like “God did it, somehow.”
I’m not a creationist, but frankly, “God did it” actually does explain this data.
But both of us are trying to figure out exactly how God did it. Maybe God used evolution (the non-random type), or maybe he used something else.
R
rossum
Guest
If any scientists claimed that then they were incorrect. The claim is that man evolved from apes, not monkeys. Monkeys have tails, apes do not. We are a species of ape (=Hominidae) in scientific terms. None of the hominid fossils, or the Australopithecines before them, have a tail. They are all apes.
rossum
R
reggieM
Guest
I think that’s a good term for it. For example, when making a reference to this quote by Darwin:
There we have a theological statement appearing suddenly in a text that is supposedly “all about science”, and is also supposedly teaching something that is the equivalent of plumbing or auto-mechanics.
But there it is – the great master giving his theological speculations under the guise of a science text. This is then used as a “proof” that Darwinism is not atheistic.
But that particular paragraph is so weak in whatever it is saying that it appears to be an afterthought – some kind of compromise to religious believers. There is no substance to it. Why the sudden mixture of theology and science with no additional explanation. What does Darwin mean when he says that the Creator “breathed”? What does he even mean by “God”? We can assume that he is using his Protestant template to speak about the Creator, but it is so unthinking that he doesn’t bother to give any more details on this matter – especially nothing on how God’s “breathing” affects anything that followed after it.
But again, the Darwinists who claim that this topic is simply a question of scientific method, likewise do not comment on how a theological statement appears in Darwin’s text.
R
reggieM
Guest
The chart showing the supposed evolution of the whale to other species is based on morphology. One shape looks like another and has similar features.
This is not a demonstration of one thing evolving into another. It’s a demonstration of one thing looking like another.
The supposed parallel evolution of the DNA structures of these creatures does not align with the similarity of shape. One would assume that since one whale type looks like the supposed descendent of another, that the DNA will show similar developments from one species to another – but the DNA does not show that. Far from it.
Simple charts showing animals that look like one another, minus the DNA differences, are really lacking the substance of what is needed to “prove” these evolutionary paths.
This is not a demonstration of one thing evolving into another. It’s a demonstration of one thing looking like another.
The supposed parallel evolution of the DNA structures of these creatures does not align with the similarity of shape. One would assume that since one whale type looks like the supposed descendent of another, that the DNA will show similar developments from one species to another – but the DNA does not show that. Far from it.
Simple charts showing animals that look like one another, minus the DNA differences, are really lacking the substance of what is needed to “prove” these evolutionary paths.
R
reggieM
Guest
Giving an affirmative reference to an atheist’s site (with no warning) – which praises the writings of Richard Dawkins among others of like mind.
R
rossum
Guest
Insufficient information, since we do not have complete gene sequences for any of them except for Pan troglodytes and Homo sapiens. We do have some partial sequences for H. neanderthalensis, see Molecular analysis of Neanderthal DNA from the northern Caucasus for one such example. Since we do not have a complete sequence for the Neanderthals and the analysis showed that they were not our direct ancestors, but cousins, we would need to have a complete sequence for the last common ancestor, probably H. heidelbergensis, to answer your question fully.
Your question is roughly equivalent to me asking you for the sequence of you ancestors in the male line between 400 CE and 600 CE. You know that such a sequence must exist because you are here now, but given the lack of surviving documentation from that period the question is too detailed to answer.
rossum
P
Philipp
Guest
When we deny God, we are capable of anything. - St. Athanasius
Debating with Darwinists is like wrestling with a sow in the mud. Eventually, you discover that:
A) You are accomplishing nothing;
B) You’re getting covered with slime from the wallow the sow lies in; and
C) The sow is enjoying herself.
Moral of the story: Don’t do it.
I love these quotes but keep in mind that we are trying to educate them not not so much to debate them as they think they are trying to do with us. Both sides are convinced of their rational. We try and educate Darwinists with hard scientific data or try to reason with them but they have the same attitude as Cardinal Schoenborn and probably most of the modernist Catholic bishops; they were educated in seminaries by modernist theologians who pride themselves to think that they know more than Christ, the church fathers and us poor dumb commoners who they are trying to brainwash on this thread. It’s called pride. St. Athanasius went into exhile several times before he, with the help of the Holy Ghost turned things around. Just keep the faith of our fathers and plug away. I’m told it was a commoner, non-priest, who went after Nestorius regarding I think it was the virginity of our Lady. Heresy and heretics are not subdued overnight.
Genesis 7: 1-24 [11-12], In the six hundredth year of Noe’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that very day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12. And rain fell on the earth forty days and ------- [note that the fountains of the deep opened up first and then it rained–volcanic eruptions, lava flows, mountain building, “pillow lava” that comes out while under water like on the Mountains of Ararat or on one of the Hawaiian Islands, possible huge waters from down under (fountains). This is history not Jewish mythology. Genesis 1-11 is history. The Bible continues to be vindicated while macroevolution’s flaws are continually exposed to the light. The light one the first day was the “light of God” and then the sun was created later. That’s the way He said He did it. This simple history is a far better explanation of the geology we see on earth than the billions and billions of years needed to support the big bang hypothesis of a tiny blob exploding into what we see throughout the universe plus hydrogen to man via some unknown process which atheists are still trying to find out how and TE’'s claim they know — Duh! God did it and just gave us a little mythology to think about for 5000 years untilthey came on the scene to explain how He used evolution.
Genesis 8: 1-19 [4-5], And in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat. 5. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month; on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains appeared—. I think Bible history is real cool, don’t you???
Debating with Darwinists is like wrestling with a sow in the mud. Eventually, you discover that:
A) You are accomplishing nothing;
B) You’re getting covered with slime from the wallow the sow lies in; and
C) The sow is enjoying herself.
Moral of the story: Don’t do it.
I love these quotes but keep in mind that we are trying to educate them not not so much to debate them as they think they are trying to do with us. Both sides are convinced of their rational. We try and educate Darwinists with hard scientific data or try to reason with them but they have the same attitude as Cardinal Schoenborn and probably most of the modernist Catholic bishops; they were educated in seminaries by modernist theologians who pride themselves to think that they know more than Christ, the church fathers and us poor dumb commoners who they are trying to brainwash on this thread. It’s called pride. St. Athanasius went into exhile several times before he, with the help of the Holy Ghost turned things around. Just keep the faith of our fathers and plug away. I’m told it was a commoner, non-priest, who went after Nestorius regarding I think it was the virginity of our Lady. Heresy and heretics are not subdued overnight.
Genesis 7: 1-24 [11-12], In the six hundredth year of Noe’s life, on the seventeenth day of the second month, on that very day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth, and the floodgates of the heavens were opened. 12. And rain fell on the earth forty days and ------- [note that the fountains of the deep opened up first and then it rained–volcanic eruptions, lava flows, mountain building, “pillow lava” that comes out while under water like on the Mountains of Ararat or on one of the Hawaiian Islands, possible huge waters from down under (fountains). This is history not Jewish mythology. Genesis 1-11 is history. The Bible continues to be vindicated while macroevolution’s flaws are continually exposed to the light. The light one the first day was the “light of God” and then the sun was created later. That’s the way He said He did it. This simple history is a far better explanation of the geology we see on earth than the billions and billions of years needed to support the big bang hypothesis of a tiny blob exploding into what we see throughout the universe plus hydrogen to man via some unknown process which atheists are still trying to find out how and TE’'s claim they know — Duh! God did it and just gave us a little mythology to think about for 5000 years untilthey came on the scene to explain how He used evolution.
Genesis 8: 1-19 [4-5], And in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, the ark rested on the mountains of Ararat. 5. The waters continued to recede until the tenth month; on the first day of the tenth month the tops of the mountains appeared—. I think Bible history is real cool, don’t you???
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
The last sentence of the supposedly “atheistic” Origin of Spcecies:
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
(nit picking about how theism isn’t theistic enough)
But you already knew that, um?
There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Heh, Reggie thinks that people who express a belief in a creator are “atheists.” That explains a lot of things.
(nit picking about how theism isn’t theistic enough)
Many scientists of the day expressed religious beliefs aside from their scientific work. It had no affect on his theory, because Darwin made no scientific claims about the origin of life.
But you already knew that, um?
T
The_Barbarian
Guest
Sounds great. What is the best “hard scientific data” you have to support creationism?
Frankly, Phil, that is what we see from creationists. If you can direct me to where Christ denied evolution, I’d be very pleased to read it. I’m thinking you are trying to graft your own ideas onto Him.
So which of the “church fathers” denied evolution? The only one who even remotely mentions it is Augustine, who said that beasts developed from other entities. Which sounds more like Pope Benedict’s teaching that common descent is virtually certain, than your opinion.
Maybe pride is getting in the way here, in ways you aren’t ready to acknowledge?
Worth thinking about. Meantime, that “hard evidence” would be good to see.
Wrong. It’s creationist embellishment of Genesis to make it something it is not.
Sounds like a testable claim; show us.
[/quote]
- Status