MOVIE: "Expelled"

[Abbadon]

Why is it that you think that proteins and whatever else needed. could only form once and then evolve into many different species from one origin? Why is the thought that proteins and whatever else needed couldn’t have been organized a certain way to organize one species and then another set of proteins and whatever else is needed could organize a different way and form another species at a different point in time? Even if you believe in the random coming together of the necessary components to being life, why is it that this could only happen once a certain way?

Actually, no. See above.

Again, wrong. Again, I believe in evolution. I don’t believe in evolution from one origin and despite all of the claims, I don’t believe it’s been scientifically proven.

Well, it my be why you keep calling God “your god”.

We’ve both affirmed she must be a figment of my imagination, i just dont know why i still see her at all… And no i say your god because it is your as in every individgual as every individgual has thier own idea of god.

Okay so your saying that on the same earth abiogensis occured multiple times? hundreds of times in fact for it to equal many of the core species we have today. But wait at some point they were still protien strands. They would still have to go from self replicating somethings into horsies and ponies… hold on i’m confused proteins are organized into an animal errrrr how?

Okay can i get a reason as to why you think this is a much more logical thoery? What evidence do you have to bring forward. I think it’s really intresting never heard this one before, I’m actually seriously intrigued. can you explain your idea fully, I’m confused.

 

[Sailor_Kenshin]

People who reject God seem to have a case of adolescent rebellion, and by and large, the ones I meet are not happy campers.

And science, while in no way inherently evil, is also in no way unbiased. Science is run by people, funded by people, and subject to the same bias all people have.

As a former science columnist, I saw examples of how science is conducted, and (more importantly) reported on.

The pretense of objectivity is exactly that.

 

[tonyl]

If you haven’t seen the movie share if you plan to, why or why not?

I haven’t seen the movie and probably will not unless it airs on some TV channel. The main reason I’m not going to pay to see it is that in viewing the movie’s website and previews, it seemed to be incredibly dishonest. The more I learned about this movie, the more dishonest it appeared. For example, here are two of the outright lies the movie tells:

1. Richard Sternberg was fired for allowing a pro-ID paper into a journal while he was editor. The problem is, He was never fired! He didn’t lose his job, he didn’t lose his research associate position at the Smithsonian, he didn’t lose access to any collections, his office move had been in the works since before the paper came out so the claim about losing his keys is a lie too. All that happened was that people complained about his rather unethical behavior in the way he snuck the paper through the peer review process. (he followed the letter of the rules, but violated the spirit of the rules and the commonly accepted practices editors use when there may be an apparent conflict of interest.)
2. Guillermo Gonzales was denied tenure because of his book and ID sympathies: In reality, he didn’t get tenure because his research output dropped dramatically while he was an assistant professor, he took on too few graduate students, and he didn’t get any funding that would allow him to do future research.

When you combine such blatant dishonesty with the completely absurd “the theory of evolution caused the Holocaust and Marxism” theme, I really don’t see why I should pay these charlatans with my hard earned money.

 

[PhilVaz]

mom << The fact that there are whales does not prove that whales evolved (an example that my dd’s grade school teacher gave and treated her with disgust when she asked how the teacher knew they evolved). Where’s the evidence? >>

http://www.bringyou.to/apologetics/whaleevolution.gif

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).

The transitional whale species as of 1998 now number about 30. Some of them are recent (1980s, 1990s), others have been known for 100 years or more. Here is a list and when first published or discovered:

• Pakicetidae - include: Pakicetus inachus (1981), Pakicetus attocki (1980), Ichthyolestes pinfoldi (1958), Nalacetus ratimitus (1998)
• Ambulocetidae - include: Ambulocetus natans (1994), Gandakasia potens (1958)
• Remingtoncetidae - include: Remingtoncetus harudiensis (1975), Remingtoncetus sloani (1972), Andrewsiphius kutchensis (1975), Andrewsiphius minor (1975), Dalanistes ahmedi (1995), Attockicetus praecursor (1998)
• Protocetidae - include: Protocetus atavus (1904), Eocetus schweinfurthi (1904), Pappocetus lugardi (1920), Babiacetus mishrai (1998), Rodhocetus kasrani (1994), Takracetus simus (1995), Georgiacetus vogtlensis (1998)
• Basilosaurids - include: Basilosaurus cetoides (1834), Basilosaurus isis (1906), Basilosaurus drazindai (1997), Basiloterus hussaini (1997)
• Dorudontines - include: Dorudon serratus (1845), Dorudon atrox (1906)

others: Pontogeneus brachyspondylus (1849), Zygorhiza kochii (1847), Saghacetus osiris (1894), Ancalacetus simonsi (1996)

All from Thewissen’s book The Emergence of Whales: Evolutionary Patterns in the Origin of Cetacea (Springer / Plenum Press, 1998). An explanation and summary of the content from James Acker. A quote from the beginning of chapter 14: “Isotopic Approaches to Understanding the Terrestrial-to-Marine Transition of the Earliest Cetaceans”

“The fossil record is replete with examples of evolutionary transitions between marine and freshwater environments, in both directions. Perhaps the most striking and best documented example of such a transition is the evolution of cetaceans (whales, dolphins, and porpoises) from the extinct group of terrestrial mammals called mesonychians.” (J.G.M. Thewissen, editor, The Emergence of Whales [1998], chapter 14)

There has been a debate whether whales evolved from mesonychians or closely-related artiodactyls (even-toed ungulates). The latest from Thewissen in an article in NATURE Dec 2007. We’ve known since Darwin that whales evolved from land mammals. Now we have the fossils to prove it.

Thank you, whale evolution proved. Q.E.D.

Phil P

 

[drpmjhess]

I am not a scientist. Most people are not scientists. Yet I am one of the many who look at evolution and say, “I don’t buy it.” I’ve felt that way since I felt I was being forced to believe it in grade school, not explicitly but because it was always the only thought presented even though, to me, the evidence wasn’t there.

The fact that there are giraffes does not prove that giraffes evolved. The fact that there are whales does not prove that whales evolved … Where’s the evidence? What did giraffes evolve from? Can evolutionists show me some sign that their evolution occurred, other than the fact that they are here? Well, no, but the reason you’re supposed to believe it is that you are either ignorant or a religious zealot if you don’t. Hm, doesn’t strike me as particularly impressive science.

I don’t buy it.

Momof8, I am not a physician. Most people are not physicians. Yet I am one of the many who look at the smoking-causes-lung-cancer myth and say, “I don’t buy it.” I’ve felt that way since I felt I was being forced to believe it in grade school, not explicitly but because it was always the only thought presented even though, to me, the evidence wasn’t there.

The fact that people smoke cigarettes does not prove anything. The fact that people who smoke cigarettes develop lung cancer at much higher rates does not prove anything. … Where’s the evidence? Can lung cancer researchers show me some sign that smoking clearly causes cancer? Well, no, but the reason you’re supposed to believe it is that you are either ignorant or a religious zealot if you don’t. Hm, doesn’t strike me as particularly impressive science.

I don’t buy it.

Petrus

 

[PhilVaz]

mom << What did giraffes evolve from? Can evolutionists show me some sign that their evolution occurred, other than the fact that they are here? Well, no, but the reason you’re supposed to believe it is that you are either ignorant or a religious zealot if you don’t >>

What you want to look up is general Artiodactyl evolution (e.g. pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows) :

Lophiomeryx, Gelocus (late Eocene, early Oligocene) – The most advanced ruminants yet, called “gelocids”, with a more compact and efficient ankle, still smaller side toes, more complex premolars and an almost completely covered mastoid bone. A slightly different lineage split off from this gelocid family in the late Eocene or early Oligocene, eventually giving rise to these four families:

Deer: Prodremotherium (late Eocene), a slightly deerlike ruminant, and Eumeryx (Oligocene), a more deer-like ruminant, Dicrocerus (early Miocene), with the first antlers (similar to living muntjacs), Acteocemas (Miocene), and then a shmoo of successful Miocene & Pliocene groups that survive today as modern deer – cervines, white- tails, moose, reindeer, etc.

Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.

Pronghorns: Paracosoryx prodromus (early Miocene, 21 Ma) a primitive antilocaprid, probably derived from a North American branch of the bovid lineage. Next came Merycodus (Miocene), with branched permanent horns. Led to numerous antilocaprids in the Pliocene. Only the pronghorn is still alive.

Bovids: known from isolated teeth in the late Oligocene, then from Eotragus, a primitive ancestral mid-Miocene bovid. Protragocerus (Miocene) soon followed. The first sheep (Oioceros) and gazelles (Gazella) are known from the mid-late Miocene (14 Ma), the first cattle (Leptobos, Parabos) from the early Pliocene (5 Ma).

From the TalkOrigins Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Part 2C with conclusion (read the conclusion also).

See Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution (1988): “The early evolution of the artiodactyls is fairly well documented by both the dentition and considerable skeletal material and provides the basis for fairly detailed analysis of evolutionary patterns…the origin of nearly all the recognized families can be traced to the late Middle Eocene or the Upper Eocene…” (page 507).

A recent book by a professional geologist / paleontologist Donald Prothero Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (Columbia Univ Press, 2007). The evolution of giraffes (with pictures) is discussed on pages 316-318: “…Nikos Solounias is currently publishing a description of a classic transitional form (figure mentioned): a giraffe fossil with an intermediate-length neck, longer than that of the okapi and the other extinct forms but shorter than that of the living giraffes. For so many years, people have speculated about how giraffes got their long necks, and now we finally have the fossils to show exactly how it happened! Once again, the fossil record has yielded a transitional form that the creationists claimed could never exist.” (Prothero, page 316)

Diagrams on page 317 describes the latest evidence for the giraffe family evolution: (A) the modern okapi is more typical of the group, with its short neck and relatively short horns or “ossicones.” Some fossil giraffids, however, had very unusual branching and flaring cranial appendages. Only the lineage of the modern giraffid evolved a long neck. (B) The modern okapi, much more typical of the giraffe family than its long-necked cousin. The oldest ancestors of the giraffe (Paleoryx, Canthumeryx) date from 23 million years ago. Samotherium branched off about 20 million years ago which led to “Paleotragus” which branched off to Bohlinia which led to Giraffa (the modern long-necked). About 12 extinct species (various necks and appendages) are listed.

Fossil Record of the Artiodactyla
Artiodactyl Evolution from Britannica
Artiodactyla References

I AM a religious zealot, AND I accept the evidence for the evolution of whales and giraffes. Religious zealots like me know how to read science books and keep themselves from being ignorant at the same time. Kind of like rubbing your tummy and patting your head together.

Phil P

 

[ricmat]

For example, here are two of the outright lies the movie tells:

1. Richard Sternberg was fired for allowing a pro-ID paper into a journal while he was editor. The problem is, He was never fired! He didn’t lose his job, he didn’t lose his research associate position at the Smithsonian, he didn’t lose access to any collections, his office move had been in the works since before the paper came out so the claim about losing his keys is a lie too. All that happened was that people complained about his rather unethical behavior in the way he snuck the paper through the peer review process. (he followed the letter of the rules, but violated the spirit of the rules and the commonly accepted practices editors use when there may be an apparent conflict of interest.)
2. Guillermo Gonzales was denied tenure because of his book and ID sympathies: In reality, he didn’t get tenure because his research output dropped dramatically while he was an assistant professor, he took on too few graduate students, and he didn’t get any funding that would allow him to do future research.

When you combine such blatant dishonesty with the completely absurd “the theory of evolution caused the Holocaust and Marxism” theme, I really don’t see why I should pay these charlatans with my hard earned money.

I haven’t seen the movie either at this point.

1. How do you know that the above 2 items were lies? Why do you believe the statements you made above, versus the statements that you think are in the film?
2. Is the theme “the theory of evolution caused the Holocaust and Marxism”, or was it more like "there is a link between Social Darwinism and the Nazis (and/or Marxists?). As I said, I haven’t seen the movie, so I don’t know what the theme is.

 

[PhilVaz]

ric << 1. How do you know that the above 2 items were lies? Why do you believe the statements you made above, versus the statements that you think are in the film? >>

It’s all here, in black and white, and other colors:

www.ExpelledExposed.com

That’s probably his source, but the same material is found on other anti-ID sites such as Pandas Thumb. The movie “Expelled” (formerly known as “Crossroads”) has been known about since Summer 2007 or so when they first started interviewing the anti-ID evolutionists. One of them, PZ Myers, wrote a couple of articles about it on his blog last year, that’s how I found out about the film.

Phil P

 

[ricmat]

ric << 1. How do you know that the above 2 items were lies? Why do you believe the statements you made above, versus the statements that you think are in the film? >>

It’s all here, in black and white, and other colors:

www.ExpelledExposed.com

That’s probably his source, but the same material is found on other anti-ID sites such as Pandas Thumb. The movie “Expelled” (formerly known as “Crossroads”) has been known about since Summer 2007 or so when they first started interviewing the anti-ID evolutionists. One of them, PZ Myers, wrote a couple of articles about it on his blog last year, that’s how I found out about the film.

Phil P

So you are looking at 2 web sites, with (apparently) opposite viewpoints, and deciding that one is true and one is false. How do you know which one is true and which one is false?

 

[PhilVaz]

ric << So you are looking at 2 web sites, with (apparently) opposite viewpoints, and deciding that one is true and one is false. How do you know which one is true and which one is false? >>

I am looking at one movie (Expelled) and one web site (ExpelledExposed.com).

The one site provides a lot of evidence (www.ExpelledExposed.com) and clearly explains why the movie “Expelled” is wrong. The “Expelled” movie makes assertions, and provides very little evidence.

It is the difference between telling us about 2 pieces of information about a case (Expelled movie) vs. giving us about 25 pieces of information about the same case (ExpelledExposed.com) so we can see the full picture.

Not only this, you can read what the interviewees themselves think of Expelled. Read what Richard Dawkins, PZ Myers, and Michael Shermer thinks of Ben Stein and the producers of Expelled. I have to side with the atheists on this one, sorry.

I have now seen “Expelled” five times, paid for it four times. ExpelledExposed.com has the movie right. I am a glutton for punishment and Ben Stein has my money.

Phil P

 

[tonyl]

I haven’t seen the movie either at this point.

1. How do you know that the above 2 items were lies? Why do you believe the statements you made above, versus the statements that you think are in the film?

Well, the documented evidence supports the statements I made. I followed the Sternberg affair while it was happening and had read quite a bit about it before I had ever heard of this movie. The simple facts, supported by all the documented evidence, show that Sternberg continued to be employed by NIH after the whole controversy blew over. The record also shows that not only did he not lose his position at the Smithsonian, but his position was renewed.

As for Gonzales, Everything I mention (decline in scientific output, lack of grad students, dearth of funding) are all well documented, and are perfectly valid reasons to deny tenure. You don’t want to give a guaranteed lifelong contract to someone who’s scientific output, funding, and ability to train grad students, looks questionable.

While I did not get my information from the expelledexposed site, I suspect they have links to the information (and more) if you would like to see it yourself.

1. Is the theme “the theory of evolution caused the Holocaust and Marxism”, or was it more like "there is a link between Social Darwinism and the Nazis (and/or Marxists?). As I said, I haven’t seen the movie, so I don’t know what the theme is.

Well, from reading the blog associated with the movie, written by Ben and the producers, listening to interviews, and reading movie reviews, it sure looks to me like the theme is “The science of evolution led to social darwinism, which is what directly led to the Nazis”. For example, this quote comes from a blog post written by Ben Stein, “Darwinism, perhaps mixed with Imperialism, gave us Social Darwinism, a form of racism so vicious that it countenanced the Holocaust against the Jews and mass murder of many other groups in the name of speeding along the evolutionary process.” Additionally, given that this whole movie is described as being about how people are expelled for doubting the theory of evolution, I think it’s pretty clear that the attempt is to tie the science to the Nazis. Otherwise, a large portion of the movie would be a giant non-sequitur.

 

[drpmjhess]

I have now seen “Expelled” five times, paid for it four times. ExpelledExposed.com has the movie right. I am a glutton for punishment and Ben Stein has my money.
Phil P

Phil, here’s an interesting perspective provoked by Expelled:

“You want proof that there is no God? Consider this: Ben Stein has the respect and attention of the Evangelical Christian community. All right, that’s not proof there is no God, it’s just proof that Evangelical Christianity was invented by Satan to ensnare the souls of the simpleminded. And God doesn’t seem to care if they all go to Hell.”

Jeff Dorchan, The Huffington Post

I feared this movie would only muddy the waters and lead to uncharitable accusations from both extreme sides. Those of us in the middle will just have to ride it out, I suppose, and strive for clarity and charity in our continuing dialogue.

Petrus

 

[momof8]

Momof8, I am not a physician. Most people are not physicians. Yet I am one of the many who look at the smoking-causes-lung-cancer myth and say, “I don’t buy it.” I’ve felt that way since I felt I was being forced to believe it in grade school, not explicitly but because it was always the only thought presented even though, to me, the evidence wasn’t there.

The fact that people smoke cigarettes does not prove anything. The fact that people who smoke cigarettes develop lung cancer at much higher rates does not prove anything. … Where’s the evidence? Can lung cancer researchers show me some sign that smoking clearly causes cancer? Well, no, but the reason you’re supposed to believe it is that you are either ignorant or a religious zealot if you don’t. Hm, doesn’t strike me as particularly impressive science.

I don’t buy it.

Petrus

I’m sorry, I’m not sure I get your point.

 

[drpmjhess]

I’m sorry, I’m not sure I get your point.

I’m only illustrating that it’s just as reasonable to doubt one scientific claim (smoking causes lung cancer) as another (evolution happens).

 

[ricmat]

I have now seen “Expelled” five times, paid for it four times. ExpelledExposed.com has the movie right. I am a glutton for punishment and Ben Stein has my money.

Phil P

OH…sorry Phil. You jumped into the middle of this and I thought it was still tonyL at the other end.

 

[momof8]

mom << What did giraffes evolve from? Can evolutionists show me some sign that their evolution occurred, other than the fact that they are here? Well, no, but the reason you’re supposed to believe it is that you are either ignorant or a religious zealot if you don’t >>

What you want to look up is general Artiodactyl evolution (e.g. pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows) :

Lophiomeryx, Gelocus (late Eocene, early Oligocene) – The most advanced ruminants yet, called “gelocids”, with a more compact and efficient ankle, still smaller side toes, more complex premolars and an almost completely covered mastoid bone. A slightly different lineage split off from this gelocid family in the late Eocene or early Oligocene, eventually giving rise to these four families:

Deer: Prodremotherium (late Eocene), a slightly deerlike ruminant, and Eumeryx (Oligocene), a more deer-like ruminant, Dicrocerus (early Miocene), with the first antlers (similar to living muntjacs), Acteocemas (Miocene), and then a shmoo of successful Miocene & Pliocene groups that survive today as modern deer – cervines, white- tails, moose, reindeer, etc.

Giraffes: Branched off from the deer just after Eumeryx. The first giraffids were Climacoceras (very earliest Miocene) and then Canthumeryx (also very early Miocene), then Paleomeryx (early Miocene), then Palaeotragus (early Miocene) a short-necked giraffid complete with short skin-covered horns. From here the giraffe lineage goes through Samotherium (late Miocene), another short-necked giraffe, and then split into Okapia (one species is still alive, the okapi, essentially a living Miocene short-necked giraffe), and Giraffa (Pliocene), the modern long-necked giraffe.

Pronghorns: Paracosoryx prodromus (early Miocene, 21 Ma) a primitive antilocaprid, probably derived from a North American branch of the bovid lineage. Next came Merycodus (Miocene), with branched permanent horns. Led to numerous antilocaprids in the Pliocene. Only the pronghorn is still alive.

Bovids: known from isolated teeth in the late Oligocene, then from Eotragus, a primitive ancestral mid-Miocene bovid. Protragocerus (Miocene) soon followed. The first sheep (Oioceros) and gazelles (Gazella) are known from the mid-late Miocene (14 Ma), the first cattle (Leptobos, Parabos) from the early Pliocene (5 Ma).

From the TalkOrigins Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ Part 2C with conclusion (read the conclusion also).

See Carroll, Vertebrate Paleontology and Evolution (1988): “The early evolution of the artiodactyls is fairly well documented by both the dentition and considerable skeletal material and provides the basis for fairly detailed analysis of evolutionary patterns…the origin of nearly all the recognized families can be traced to the late Middle Eocene or the Upper Eocene…” (page 507).

A recent book by a professional geologist / paleontologist Donald Prothero Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters (Columbia Univ Press, 2007). The evolution of giraffes (with pictures) is discussed on pages 316-318: “…Nikos Solounias is currently publishing a description of a classic transitional form (figure mentioned): a giraffe fossil with an intermediate-length neck, longer than that of the okapi and the other extinct forms but shorter than that of the living giraffes. For so many years, people have speculated about how giraffes got their long necks, and now we finally have the fossils to show exactly how it happened! Once again, the fossil record has yielded a transitional form that the creationists claimed could never exist.” (Prothero, page 316)

Diagrams on page 317 describes the latest evidence for the giraffe family evolution: (A) the modern okapi is more typical of the group, with its short neck and relatively short horns or “ossicones.” Some fossil giraffids, however, had very unusual branching and flaring cranial appendages. Only the lineage of the modern giraffid evolved a long neck. (B) The modern okapi, much more typical of the giraffe family than its long-necked cousin. The oldest ancestors of the giraffe (Paleoryx, Canthumeryx) date from 23 million years ago. Samotherium branched off about 20 million years ago which led to “Paleotragus” which branched off to Bohlinia which led to Giraffa (the modern long-necked). About 12 extinct species (various necks and appendages) are listed.

Fossil Record of the Artiodactyla
Artiodactyl Evolution from Britannica
Artiodactyla References

I AM a religious zealot, AND I accept the evidence for the evolution of whales and giraffes. Religious zealots like me know how to read science books and keep themselves from being ignorant at the same time. Kind of like rubbing your tummy and patting your head together.

Phil P

Thank you, Phil. I will look into this information and the information sent on whales. Can I ask why, if this is accurate, not the least of it is presented as part of a typical science class? Is it because science programs are dumbed-down and students are not expected to be able to handle it? Why have I never seen it in a museum? (Maybe Petrus will say he’s never seen it in a doctor’s office, but I won’t understand what he’s getting at then, either!) Evolution is presented as something you are supposed to believe, no questions asked. That is bad science and poor education.

 

[drpmjhess]

Thank you, Phil. I will look into this information and the information sent on whales. Can I ask why, if this is accurate, not the least of it is presented as part of a typical science class? Is it because science programs are dumbed-down and students are not expected to be able to handle it? Why have I never seen it in a museum? (Maybe Petrus will say he’s never seen it in a doctor’s office, but I won’t understand what he’s getting at then, either!) Evolution is presented as something you are supposed to believe, no questions asked. That is bad science and poor education.

Momof8, Natural history museums are chock full of this evidence in the form of fossil sequences. California Academy of Sciences, Field Museum in Chicago, Monterey Bay Aquarium, Victoria and Albert Museum in London, American Museum of Natural History, etc., etc.

And admittedly I went to a Catholic rather than a public high school, but our biology course was replete with evolutionary theory and the evidence for it. We asked load of questions about evolution, and the teacher welcomed all but one.

Petrus

 

[momof8]

mom << What did giraffes evolve from? Can evolutionists show me some sign that their evolution occurred, other than the fact that they are here? Well, no, but the reason you’re supposed to believe it is that you are either ignorant or a religious zealot if you don’t >>

What you want to look up is general Artiodactyl evolution (e.g. pigs, hippos, deer, giraffes, cows) :…

Phil P

Phil,

Can you clarify for me, that the fact that an animal is extinct is considered proof that it evolved into something else? Can you also clarify, that the “evolution” of the giraffe involved several intermediate steps, meaning that in the way that evolution works, the species does not go from a short neck to an intermediate one to a long one but that there were also animals in between that had necks of varying lengths, is that correct? And that none of those variants still exists - each one is replaced by the new one? I am honestly trying to understand the sequence that is advanced by the evolutionary theory.

At what point in this evolution is a new species in existence, in the sense that the “new” species can no longer reproduce with the “old” species?

Also, am I correct in my understanding that according to evolutionary theory, animals evolved from plants? And in that theory, when you go from a relatively simple life form to a more advanced one, at what point are the specialized organs we see in animals thought to have come into existence?

Do you see evolutionary theory as incompatible with the concept of intelligent design? I’m sorry if you’ve already discussed this particular question and I missed it. I jumped in at answering the question about whether we planned to see the movie, and why.

Thanks for taking the time to anwer my questions.

 

[PhilVaz]

mom << Thank you, Phil. I will look into this information and the information sent on whales. Can I ask why, if this is accurate, not the least of it is presented as part of a typical science class? Is it because science programs are dumbed-down and students are not expected to be able to handle it? Why have I never seen it in a museum? >>

You might not see all the whale transitionals since they are still new. From what I understand, it takes a few decades for information to trickle down into the grade-school, high-school science textbooks. So you might still be seeing 1970s information on whales when we didn’t have all the transitionals discovered from the 1980s and 90s.

I don’t go to museums but it might be the particular museum you mean. I hope you don’t mean this one

This information has been published in various books:

whale evolution for kids/students:

How Whales Walked into the Sea (Scholastic, 1999), ages 4-8
Virus and the Whale: Exploring Evolution in Creatures Small and Large (Natl Sci Teachers Assoc, 2006)
Whale (DK Children, 2004), ages 9-12

popular books:

At the Water’s Edge : Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs… by Carl Zimmer (Free Press, 1999)
Beasts of Eden: Walking Whales, Dawn Horses, and Other Enigmas of Mammal Evolution by D.R. Wallace (Univ of CA Press, 2004)

scholarly/academic books:

Marine Mammals: Evolutionary Biology by Annalisa Berta / James Sumich / Kit Kovacs (Academic Press, 2005)
The Emergence of Whales: Evolutionary Patterns in the Origin of Cetacea by JGM Thewissen (Springer, 1998)

BTW, I didn’t have to write up that stuff on whales and giraffes, I simply copy/pasted from various messages I’ve posted in here since 2004. Virtually every question and objection about the creation-evolution controversy has been asked and answered in here.

Phil P

 

[RobbyS]

mom << Thank you, Phil. I will look into this information and the information sent on whales. Can I ask why, if this is accurate, not the least of it is presented as part of a typical science class? Is it because science programs are dumbed-down and students are not expected to be able to handle it? Why have I never seen it in a museum? >>

You might not see all the whale transitionals since they are still new. From what I understand, it takes a few decades for information to trickle down into the grade-school, high-school science textbooks. So you might still be seeing 1970s information on whales when we didn’t have all the transitionals discovered from the 1980s and 90s.

I don’t go to museums but it might be the particular museum you mean. I hope you don’t mean this one

This information has been published in various books:

whale evolution for kids/students:

How Whales Walked into the Sea (Scholastic, 1999), ages 4-8
Virus and the Whale: Exploring Evolution in Creatures Small and Large (Natl Sci Teachers Assoc, 2006)
Whale (DK Children, 2004), ages 9-12

popular books:

At the Water’s Edge : Fish with Fingers, Whales with Legs… by Carl Zimmer (Free Press, 1999)
Beasts of Eden: Walking Whales, Dawn Horses, and Other Enigmas of Mammal Evolution by D.R. Wallace (Univ of CA Press, 2004)

scholarly/academic books:

Marine Mammals: Evolutionary Biology by Annalisa Berta / James Sumich / Kit Kovacs (Academic Press, 2005)
The Emergence of Whales: Evolutionary Patterns in the Origin of Cetacea by JGM Thewissen (Springer, 1998)

BTW, I didn’t have to write up that stuff on whales and giraffes, I simply copy/pasted from various messages I’ve posted in here since 2004. Virtually every question and objection about the creation-evolution controversy has been asked and answered in here.

Phil P

As a former high school teacher, let me remind you that not one student in 10 is capable of absorbing the information that you give and evaluating it. What they learn can all be boiled down to this: the old joke, “Is it going to be on the test?” I personally have believed in evolution since I was about seven and able to read the old “Book of Knowledge.” Most people have internalized this by the time they reach high school. In any case, the ID people, none of them, deny the theory of evolution. They contend not that the theory is wrong, like the
cosmological theory of Ptolermy, but that like the cosmology of Copernicus, inexact. More, many of the Darwinians are a bit like Bruno: they have created a mythology.

I like Pope Benedict’s take on Genesis: It is noty a scientific account of thge origin of things. It is a radical deconstruction of pagan mythologies, whether of Egypt or Mesopotamia. There has been speculation that the God of Moses, of the Jews, owed something to the monotheism of a Pharoah who attenpted to overthrow the polytheism of Egypt. But Genesis simply dismisses this: the planets, including the sun, are not gods, but the creations of God. He is unlike Ra; he is the principle behind that god.

Many Darwinians, in attempting to go far beyond the evidence, when they approach the origin of life-forms–which are infinitely more complex than other things on the same cosmological scale, have to create a myth. The Babylonian myth is not false
in so far as it anthromorphizes the powers of which men are aware. Only a fool would not defer to the powers that hold sway over our lives. If one is persuaded that one can address these powers and by some means or another, makes one’s life tolerable, then he will do so.

T