MOVIE: "Expelled"

[bear06]

There are 100,000 or so working evolutionary biologists, with many others in allied disciplines such as genetics and paleontology. All work with evolutionary theory to some degree. Physical anthropologists like their colleagues continue to enrich our understanding of human ancestry shared with the rest of life on the planet. I could provide you with many links, but you wouldn’t read the material anyway, so there is no point.

Dude, that’s a cop-out. I’m a “know thy enemy” kind of gal. If you don’t read what people say, how can you ever learn to refute it?

Quite frankly, I have yet to see any evidence (I’ve seen plenty of theories) showing a shared ancestry of humans with the rest of life on the planet. That theory is rather impossible to prove if you can’t prove the origin of life. Nobody has yet to even remotely say “I know exactly (or even proximately) how it happened” despite the numerous advances in science. And, quite frankly, the numerous advances in science more back up ID than the random theory that proteins joined in just the right way with some unknown power to create a cell. The shear complexity of a cell alone diminishes it’s possible random occurence.

Back to the point of the movie - Nobody has a clue to how life began. There are only theories and it’s rather ironic that some will actually admit there could be an intelligent designer as long as people don’t think it’s God. Even Dawkins said that there could have been intelligent being behind life but you absolutely positively can’t say that it’s God. I think Dawkins likes is god-complex a little too much to give it up.

 

[bear06]

There are 100,000 or so working evolutionary biologists, with many others in allied disciplines such as genetics and paleontology. All work with evolutionary theory to some degree. Physical anthropologists like their colleagues continue to enrich our understanding of human ancestry shared with the rest of life on the planet. I could provide you with many links, but you wouldn’t read the material anyway, so there is no point.

BTW, it just occurred to me that I know more than one geneticist and anthropologist. None of them have a problem with ID and all are respected in their fields (my husband included). I also know several other scientists in varying fields who are just peachy with ID. (Don’t know any paleontologists - at least not yet!) I know people tend to think the scientific world is largely against ID but I don’t believe that’s quite true. I do, however, think the area of academia wprld is. Believe it or not, these are two very different worlds!

 

[foolishmortal]

BTW I say God bless America and then criticize the revolution that brought it about because, although those with"a better idea" usually make a mess of things, it just happened that America turned out ok. When I think about it now, though, America broke from the Church of England’s monarchy and not the Catholic Church’s. It still did not make it a good idea to do so, but it worked out.

Many countries have their socialist paradise where they get all kind of health care and everything covered to certain degrees of competence (I can’t say it frees non-socialist nations from MRSA, abuse of patients by burnt-out staff or objects left in the body after surgery, but people still come to America for the really big things) but oddly, the bucking of abusive authority, that is an American tradition, borrowed by other nations who did not do it right in that they’re falling apart as a culture as they open themselves up to anything except Church teaching, has come in handy when the nation gets run by NWO types and those running academia. I mean, these things have linked orthodox Catholics, orthodox Christians as well as Orthodox Jews in effective ways the silly adventures in ecumenism by leaders of these churches since the '60s. I even talked to an angry “agnostic (which probably means they’re not spiritually deprived or depraved enough for the dead soul of Amsterdam or the beaches of Brazil, yet)” Christian who was anti-socialism and NWO. We are vigilant.

We, as reactionaries, may not be subtle and cultivated enough in our language for a newspaper article. We never did well in covert operations in the social theater of combat and our biggest collective (as opposed to a real paranoid live one who might shoot at the government) sin can be a backbiting tongue (not that that is light matter). Pride can be also a problem, but if bucking academia is pride, it’s better than losing our faith and that of our youths’ over something not proven. As Christians and Jews with many of the Old Testament books of the Bible shared amongst ourselves as our history and theology book (plus the other ones for other Christians and more (the originals) and approved Catechisms for us Catholics as our history and theology), we still have our souls. God bless America! We’ll have to have the nation sold out from under us and those to whom it may have been sold to pay for wars physically push us out of here! The U.N. would have to send all their (false)peacekeepers to America to shove us off! We are not going to lightly become overrun by populations with Muslim terrorists, as have almost totally replaced European populations, or by Mexicans, who are probably socialized by now,

As can be seen by the larger numbers of homeschoolers and younger women staying at home to raise their kids, we are certainly not going to have Boomer elitists, still having tantrums against their parents and religion teachers, in schools decide how we’ll think. Yeah, they went against authority then, but it really was an unamerican-in-origin protest as it went against the good of the nation and America was founded for religious liberty and not for atheist elitist domination. We’ve shown “freethinker” elites (whose beliefs often flow from the midsection of the body) what free-thinking is, most of it being the freedom only God can give, and they don’t like it one bit.

One think low-brows and high brows share in common is a human disdain for those who live in primitive ways or look primitive to us. Elitists had slaves and now, population control and low-brows had minstrel shows and abusement of blacks and Native Americans. I think we in the West, as well as the Muslims (though they “borrowed” much from the Church and claimed it their own, they still made beautiful art) and Chinese (really, the Northern Hemisphere) do have a propensity for spreading our respective civilizations around and spitting on the southern hemisphere’s people. For that, we really need Christianity and to live it in faith and works and hope. Despite how Christians can ruin the name of God, it, itself, can only improve us and the world. If we bow before science as a godless religion for our answers, we do it no favors and we have the 3rd worlders being less-evolved pests and our wasteful wealthy selves or those of us descended from those civilizations as right to spread our culture to all places, whereas Christ showed we proud ones are not the best and that the poor are better off. Into the former mentality, which came from paganism, evolution was born. We cannot blame macro-evolution for all elitist takeovers of more primitive societies as pax Romanus and the expansion of Islam was done centuries before (backwoods rednecks probably were just afraid of what they didn’t understand), but into that elitist mindset, the “evidence” came together and evolution was conceived, even if subconsciously.

 

[foolishmortal]

BTW I say God bless America and then criticize the revolution that brought it about because, although those with"a better idea" usually make a mess of things, it just happened that America turned out ok. When I think about it now, though, America broke from the Church of England’s monarchy and not the Catholic Church’s. It still did not make it a good idea to do so, but it worked out.

Many countries have their socialist paradise where they get all kind of health care and everything covered to certain degrees of competence (I can’t say it frees non-socialist nations from MRSA, abuse of patients by burnt-out staff or objects left in the body after surgery, but people still come to America for the really big things) but oddly, the bucking of abusive authority, that is an American tradition, borrowed by other nations who did not do it right in that they’re falling apart as a culture as they open themselves up to anything except Church teaching, has come in handy when the nation gets run by NWO types and those running academia. I mean, these things have linked orthodox Catholics, orthodox Christians as well as Orthodox Jews in effective ways the silly adventures in ecumenism by leaders of these churches since the '60s. I even talked to an angry “agnostic (which probably means they’re not spiritually deprived or depraved enough for the dead soul of Amsterdam or the beaches of Brazil, yet)” Christian who was anti-socialism and NWO. We are vigilant.

We, as reactionaries, may not be subtle and cultivated enough in our language for a newspaper article. We never did well in covert operations in the social theater of combat and our biggest collective (as opposed to a real paranoid live one who might shoot at the government) sin can be a backbiting tongue (not that that is light matter). Pride can be also a problem, but if bucking academia is pride, it’s better than losing our faith and that of our youths’ over something not proven. As Christians and Jews with many of the Old Testament books of the Bible shared amongst ourselves as our history and theology book (plus the other ones for other Christians and more (the originals) and approved Catechisms for us Catholics as our history and theology), we still have our souls. God bless America! We’ll have to have the nation sold out from under us and those to whom it may have been sold to pay for wars physically push us out of here! The U.N. would have to send all their (false)peacekeepers to America to shove us off! We are not going to lightly become overrun by populations with Muslim terrorists, as have almost totally replaced European populations, or by Mexicans, who are probably socialized by now,

As can be seen by the larger numbers of homeschoolers and younger women staying at home to raise their kids, we are certainly not going to have Boomer elitists, still having tantrums against their parents and religion teachers, in schools decide how we’ll think. Yeah, they went against authority then, but it really was an unamerican-in-origin protest as it went against the good of the nation and America was founded for religious liberty and not for atheist elitist domination. We’ve shown “freethinker” elites (whose beliefs often flow from the midsection of the body) what free-thinking is, most of it being the freedom only God can give, and they don’t like it one bit.

One think low-brows and high brows share in common is a human disdain for those who live in primitive ways or look primitive to us. Elitists had slaves and now, population control and low-brows had minstrel shows and abusement of blacks and Native Americans. I think we in the West, as well as the Muslims (though they “borrowed” much from the Church and claimed it their own, they still made beautiful art) and Chinese (really, the Northern Hemisphere) do have a propensity for spreading our respective civilizations around and spitting on the southern hemisphere’s people. For that, we really need Christianity and to live it in faith and works and hope. Despite how Christians can ruin the name of God, it, itself, can only improve us and the world. If we bow before science as a godless religion for our answers, we do it no favors and we have the 3rd worlders being less-evolved pests and our wasteful wealthy selves or those of us descended from those civilizations as right to spread our culture to all places, whereas Christ showed we proud ones are not the best and that the poor are better off. Into the former mentality, which came from paganism, evolution was born. We cannot blame macro-evolution for all elitist takeovers of more primitive societies as pax Romanus and the expansion of Islam was done centuries before (backwoods rednecks probably were just afraid of what they didn’t understand), but into that elitist mindset, the “evidence” came together and evolution was conceived, even if subconsciously.

 

[foolishmortal]

BTW I say God bless America and then criticize the revolution that brought it about because, although those with"a better idea" usually make a mess of things, it just happened that America turned out ok. When I think about it now, though, America broke from the Church of England’s monarchy and not the Catholic Church’s. It still did not make it a good idea to do so, but it worked out.

Many countries have their socialist paradise where they get all kind of health care and everything covered to certain degrees of competence (I can’t say it frees non-socialist nations from MRSA, abuse of patients by burnt-out staff or objects left in the body after surgery, but people still come to America for the really big things) but oddly, the bucking of abusive authority, that is an American tradition, borrowed by other nations who did not do it right in that they’re falling apart as a culture as they open themselves up to anything except Church teaching, has come in handy when the nation gets run by NWO types and those running academia. I mean, these things have linked orthodox Catholics, orthodox Christians as well as Orthodox Jews in effective ways the silly adventures in ecumenism by leaders of these churches since the '60s. I even talked to an angry “agnostic (which probably means they’re not spiritually deprived or depraved enough for the dead soul of Amsterdam or the beaches of Brazil, yet)” Christian who was anti-socialism and NWO. We are vigilant.

We, as reactionaries, may not be subtle and cultivated enough in our language for a newspaper article. We never did well in covert operations in the social theater of combat and our biggest collective (as opposed to a real paranoid live one who might shoot at the government) sin can be a backbiting tongue (not that that is light matter). Pride can be also a problem, but if bucking academia is pride, it’s better than losing our faith and that of our youths’ over something not proven. As Christians and Jews with many of the Old Testament books of the Bible shared amongst ourselves as our history and theology book (plus the other ones for other Christians and more (the originals) and approved Catechisms for us Catholics as our history and theology), we still have our souls. God bless America! We’ll have to have the nation sold out from under us and those to whom it may have been sold to pay for wars physically push us out of here! The U.N. would have to send all their (false)peacekeepers to America to shove us off! We are not going to lightly become overrun by populations with Muslim terrorists, as have almost totally replaced European populations, or by Mexicans, who are probably socialized by now,

As can be seen by the larger numbers of homeschoolers and younger women staying at home to raise their kids, we are certainly not going to have Boomer elitists, still having tantrums against their parents and religion teachers, in schools decide how we’ll think. Yeah, they went against authority then, but it really was an unamerican-in-origin protest as it went against the good of the nation and America was founded for religious liberty and not for atheist elitist domination. We’ve shown “freethinker” elites (whose beliefs often flow from the midsection of the body) what free-thinking is, most of it being the freedom only God can give, and they don’t like it one bit.

One think low-brows and high brows share in common is a human disdain for those who live in primitive ways or look primitive to us. Elitists had slaves and now, population control and low-brows had minstrel shows and abusement of blacks and Native Americans. I think we in the West, as well as the Muslims (though they “borrowed” much from the Church and claimed it their own, they still made beautiful art) and Chinese (really, the Northern Hemisphere) do have a propensity for spreading our respective civilizations around and spitting on the southern hemisphere’s people. For that, we really need Christianity and to live it in faith and works and hope. Despite how Christians can ruin the name of God, it, itself, can only improve us and the world. If we bow before science as a godless religion for our answers, we do it no favors and we have the 3rd worlders being less-evolved pests and our wasteful wealthy selves or those of us descended from those civilizations as right to spread our culture to all places, whereas Christ showed we proud ones are not the best and that the poor are better off. Into the former mentality, which came from paganism, evolution was born. We cannot blame macro-evolution for all elitist takeovers of more primitive societies as pax Romanus and the expansion of Islam was done centuries before (backwoods rednecks probably were just afraid of what they didn’t understand), but into that elitist mindset, the “evidence” came together and evolution was conceived, even if subconsciously.

 

[PhilVaz]

A couple of comments I’ll respond to…

foolishmortal << For a scientific approach, there’s the Kolbe Center and “The Triumph of Design” (design being or not being used correctly, it’s still good" film documentary by Jack Cashill. Kansas has a creation center as well. >>

Agreed with most, until you got to this. The Kolbe Center is a Catholic version of “Answers In Genesis.” They are a young-earth group and not taken seriously by professional scientists. They do not publish in scientific journals (e.g. Nature or Science), nor participate in professional scientific conferences nor present peer-reviewed research, therefore, they are not taking a scientific approach. Evidence for an old earth is here.

bean << I’m truly sorry Abbadon, evolution is not now or has it ever been a fact. Natural Selection is totally ridiculous. There is not a ton of evidence to support it. There is no evidence to support it. Take all your micro and macro evolution and it is all mouthwash! >>

What do you do with the evidence for evolution on my page, the evidence on the TalkOrigins Evolutionary Biology FAQ page, the Index to Creationist Claims pages?

Any evidence for evolution and natural selection you find on those pages? Here’s more…

Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller
Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk
The Language of God by Francis Collins

Petrus listed a few dozen more titles. Please take your time evaluating the evidence carefully.

bean << If you could say it in 50 words or less, what is the difference between Darwinism and Evolution? >>

When I use Darwinism/Evolution together I define them both scientifically as “descent with modification by natural selection as the primary mechanism.” Normally when creationists or IDers use “Darwinism” they mean a philosophical position that is “evolution without God.” But science is neutral with respect to God.

The historical definition of Darwinism is purely a scientific concept: see What is Darwinism? It involves 5 points:

(1) Evolution proper: change or transformation of organisms over time.
(2) Common descent or the concept that every group of organisms historically descend from a common ancestor.
(3) Multiplication of species.
(4) Gradualism, or evolutionary change takes place through gradual change of populations.
(5) Natural selection as the mechanism.

Evolution can also be defined generally as “change over time,” and specifically as “universal common descent by gradual modification” (without specifying the mechanism). "Common descent" is also called “macroevolution.”

For the most recent evidence from the fossil record for “common descent” see Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero, a professional geologist / paleontologist (Columbia Univ Press, 2007). A great coffee-table size book with lots of pictures. He also responds directly to creationism and some ID arguments.

bear << Quite frankly, I have yet to see any evidence (I’ve seen plenty of theories) showing a shared ancestry of humans with the rest of life on the planet.>>

Your statement shows you do not know what a scientific theory is.

“I have yet to see any evidence (I’ve seen plenty of theories)”

A scientific theory is not a guess, hunch, speculation, conjecture or hypothesis. A scientific theory is a well-supported explanation that unites thousands of individual pieces of evidence, facts, observations. It is a model or framework for understanding, an established paradigm that explains all or many of the data we have and offers valid predictions that can be tested. These are definitions I’ve used in the past (from Wikipedia, dictionary.reference.com, etc).

Biological evolution is such a theory, just as gravity, atomic theory, plate tectonics, electromagnetism, and the germ theory of disease.

There’s a little bit of evidence on these pages: Fossil Hominids: Evidence for Human Evolution. And a couple dozen books on the topic. Just visit a university library sometime.

Bones, Stones, and Molecules: “Out of Africa” and Human Origins by David W. Cameron and Colin P. Groves (Elsevier, 2004)
Where Do We Come From? The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent by Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata (Springer, 2002)
The Human Fossil Record (volume 1, forthcoming in 4 volumes) by Schwartz / Tattersall (John Wiley and Sons, 2002)
Extinct Humans by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Westview Press / Perseus Books, 2000)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution edited by Steve Jones, Robert Martin, David Pilbeam (Cambridge Univ Press, 1992)
The Search for Eve by Michael H. Brown (Harper and Row, 1990)
Guide to Fossil Man by Michael H. Day (Univ of Chicago Press, 1986, 4th edition)
Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey (Simon and Schuster, 1981)

All books I found at USF. For a Catholic and Christian perspective see this article. The 2004 ITC statement is also quite good.

No spelling errors, and I’ve only submitted my post once. That means I am definitely an Intelligent Evolutionist.

Phil P

 

[foolishmortal]

George Carlin had his list of people he can do
without. I believe elites do too. Those who are low
on the evolutionary ladder by being simple folk and
those who upset their neo-pax Romanus. With abortion
(helpless unborn as non-persons and a threat to the
woman’s Satan-given right (my sarcasm) to do whatever
she wants with her body and putting to sleep of the
“feeble-minded” and
“useless eaters” like they were sick dogs they have
accomplished their first desire. Macroevolution being
declared fact and Genesis, a storybook for simple
minds, that made it possible in the minds of those
still not sure we were more than another species of
animal to do horrible things in the 20th century. The
church people Carlin can do without are next. Stalin
and Mao did not do a good enough job, apparently, nor
did the Masons atheist capitalists.

I believe America is vigilant, those weary being
either religious or not, and not going to roll over
and play dead so it can get its stomach scratched. We
do focus on one thing at a time too often, but, with
this movie, it seems back on the intolerant academia
who, though arrogant, probably, like Pontius Pilate,
are afraid of getting their country slammed by the
world for being backward. They don’t like what they
see as an American snobbery, but their nations are
falling apart and they are selling their culture away
to be global. People have come to do science here
because we do lead and we lead because we think out of
the box. We are in a box with macroevolution. We may
be in a box with Genesis, but it is the only canonical
history of the world and our species’ origin and its
historicity has not been formally denied by any
approved Catechism. With the holes shown in
macroevolution, I really have to go with the Bible on
this one unless science can come up with something
airtight. If it’s holey, it might as well be holy.

We humans are not going to understand everything.
Statues should not weep, but they do. The bones
should show an old Earth, but they don’t necessarily
have to. We don’t see what makes crop circles so we
definitely don’t know for sure how those bones got
there. If aliens are possibly demons in disguise;
it’s possible the dinosaurs were the dragons in world
histories and they could have been demons as well. We
don’t know and so science should be a tool for anyone
to use to understand these things, leaving historians,
theologians and philosophers the freedom to
continually debate what they mean. It really doesn’t
matter to science if we evolved from apes or a common
ancestor with apes; that is for scientifically
informed philosophers to work out with theologians.

When it comes to applied science, what matters is
now, though borrowing from recorded history, the
context for results from exhumations of remains, to
understand what happened during the Black Plague, for
example. To heal people, we need to know how the body
works now. To heal minds and families, it doesn’t
matter what our cranial capacity was at a certain
time. I feel macroevolution should just be something for
philosophizing. It’s not important enough to science now to persecute non-believers in academia.

America is not ultimately interested in what the world thinks and that’s what keeps us great, despite mistakes of its leaders. We might not become creationist, but we are not going to cower before the intelligentsia of this country or that of the world. That keeps us strong. We will be a light to others even if the nation gets financially sold out from under us. I think other nations deep down respect us for that as they respect the Church for its stands on, at least, dogma, even if we lost much trying to please everyone else by lightening up the Church, pastorally.

 

[richardwy]

free inquiry is exactly what science is all about

I don’t buy that for a moment. No bucks, no Buck Rogers and at so many levels too.

I am NOT saying that a love for money corrupts all scientists equally.

When it comes to drug companies, pesticide companies, medical whatevers, then its another story. Mastered by avarice.

Would be much more happier with a science whose goal to serve the good, the true, and the beautiful. Or better yet, to serve God and help their neighbors.

Science (awful noun, like it’s one homogenous collective thing) searching for truth doesn’t thrill me. Leaves out of account the corrupt nature of man. Tower of Babel and all that. Toss in Bacon’s The New Atlantis bit about becoming the masters and rulers of nature, and I say from a distance it’s all about serving whomever pipes the tune. In practice, I say that is so.

For all scientists, no. For science viewed from a distance during the last 50 odd years of my lifetime, yes! It’s a no brainer.

Nope. I’m not moved by science, whatever that noun really is, crying foul.

 

[Bean61]

A couple of comments I’ll respond to…

foolishmortal << For a scientific approach, there’s the Kolbe Center and “The Triumph of Design” (design being or not being used correctly, it’s still good" film documentary by Jack Cashill. Kansas has a creation center as well. >>

Agreed with most, until you got to this. The Kolbe Center is a Catholic version of “Answers In Genesis.” They are a young-earth group and not taken seriously by professional scientists. They do not publish in scientific journals (e.g. Nature or Science), nor participate in professional scientific conferences nor present peer-reviewed research, therefore, they are not taking a scientific approach. Evidence for an old earth is here.

bean << I’m truly sorry Abbadon, evolution is not now or has it ever been a fact. Natural Selection is totally ridiculous. There is not a ton of evidence to support it. There is no evidence to support it. Take all your micro and macro evolution and it is all mouthwash! >>

What do you do with the evidence for evolution on my page, the evidence on the TalkOrigins Evolutionary Biology FAQ page, the Index to Creationist Claims pages?

Any evidence for evolution and natural selection you find on those pages? Here’s more…

Finding Darwin’s God by Ken Miller
Perspectives on an Evolving Creation edited by Keith Miller
Coming to Peace with Science by Darrel Falk
The Language of God by Francis Collins

Petrus listed a few dozen more titles. Please take your time evaluating the evidence carefully.

bean << If you could say it in 50 words or less, what is the difference between Darwinism and Evolution? >>

When I use Darwinism/Evolution together I define them both scientifically as “descent with modification by natural selection as the primary mechanism.” Normally when creationists or IDers use “Darwinism” they mean a philosophical position that is “evolution without God.” But science is neutral with respect to God.

The historical definition of Darwinism is purely a scientific concept: see What is Darwinism? It involves 5 points:

(1) Evolution proper: change or transformation of organisms over time.
(2) Common descent or the concept that every group of organisms historically descend from a common ancestor.
(3) Multiplication of species.
(4) Gradualism, or evolutionary change takes place through gradual change of populations.
(5) Natural selection as the mechanism.

Evolution can also be defined generally as “change over time,” and specifically as “universal common descent by gradual modification” (without specifying the mechanism). "Common descent" is also called “macroevolution.”

For the most recent evidence from the fossil record for “common descent” see Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Donald Prothero, a professional geologist / paleontologist (Columbia Univ Press, 2007). A great coffee-table size book with lots of pictures. He also responds directly to creationism and some ID arguments.

bear << Quite frankly, I have yet to see any evidence (I’ve seen plenty of theories) showing a shared ancestry of humans with the rest of life on the planet.>>

Your statement shows you do not know what a scientific theory is.

“I have yet to see any evidence (I’ve seen plenty of theories)”

Phil P

OK Phil, give me the names of mammals that, through Natural Selection, somehow combined to form one species out of two seperate species.

1. The animal must be bigger than a breadbox. Gnat size animals or smaller are not included.

I want to look this up. I realize that I could be all wet, but this would be a chance for you to prove Darwin’s theory.

 

[drpmjhess]

OK Phil, give me the names of mammals that, through Natural Selection, somehow combined to form one species out of two seperate species.1) The animal must be bigger than a breadbox. Gnat size animals or smaller are not included.
I want to look this up. I realize that I could be all wet, but this would be a chance for you to prove Darwin’s theory.

Bean61, evolution has never argued this. You’re not only not at the discussion table; you’re not even in the same room with evolutionists.

 

[bear06]

Your statement shows you do not know what a scientific theory is.

Actually, it shows I do not agree with the theory of Darwinism. It’s not a religious issue for me. I believe it has been shown to be bad science by scientists. In all fairness to Darwin, he gave it a good shot but he has been disproven by modern science, science he simply couldn’t imagine and didn’t have access to.

“I have yet to see any evidence (I’ve seen plenty of theories)”

Biological evolution is such a theory, just as gravity, atomic theory, plate tectonics, electromagnetism, and the germ theory of disease.

Sorry. Biological evolutin doesn’t have nearly the evidence as gravity, plate tectonics, electromagnetism, etc. If you’d like to consider it an theory in it’s infancy, maybe I can see your point.

There’s a little bit of evidence on these pages: Fossil Hominids: Evidence for Human Evolution. And a couple dozen books on the topic. Just visit a university library sometime.

Bones, Stones, and Molecules: “Out of Africa” and Human Origins by David W. Cameron and Colin P. Groves (Elsevier, 2004)
Where Do We Come From? The Molecular Evidence for Human Descent by Jan Klein and Naoyuki Takahata (Springer, 2002)
The Human Fossil Record (volume 1, forthcoming in 4 volumes) by Schwartz / Tattersall (John Wiley and Sons, 2002)
Extinct Humans by Ian Tattersall and Jeffrey H. Schwartz (Westview Press / Perseus Books, 2000)
The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Human Evolution edited by Steve Jones, Robert Martin, David Pilbeam (Cambridge Univ Press, 1992)
The Search for Eve by Michael H. Brown (Harper and Row, 1990)
Guide to Fossil Man by Michael H. Day (Univ of Chicago Press, 1986, 4th edition)
Lucy: The Beginnings of Humankind by Donald C. Johanson and Maitland A. Edey (Simon and Schuster, 1981)

All books I found at USF. For a Catholic and Christian perspective see this article. The 2004 ITC statement is also quite good.

OK, I can’t help but laugh at the final paragraph. I’m quite local to USF and have had relatives and friends graduate from there. Because a book is found at USF, it hardly makes it Catholic. It’s like saying what comes out of a theologians mouth at USF is Catholic.

 

[Bean61]

Bean61, evolution has never argued this. You’re not only not at the discussion table; you’re not even in the same room with evolutionists.

Is that a “Sorry Bean I have no evidence to show this to be true”?

 

[PhilVaz]

bean << OK Phil, give me the names of mammals that, through Natural Selection, somehow combined to form one species out of two seperate species. 1) The animal must be bigger than a breadbox. Gnat size animals or smaller are not included. I want to look this up. I realize that I could be all wet, but this would be a chance for you to prove Darwin’s theory. >>

I saw you mention this “two to form one species” before, and you were already corrected on that. I’m not sure why you think that is evolution, or even what that exactly means, or why it would be evidence of anything. What would be evidence for “common descent” (i.e. macroevolution) is if I can point you to ‘reptile-like mammals’ or ‘mammal-like reptiles’ (these are older terms for the transitional fossils between the reptiles and mammals). This is one of the most well-documented transitions in the fossil record. If you are going to look this up, you can find the same book I mentioned:

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Prothero (2007)

Turn to page 271, and begin reading chapter 13: “Mammalian Explosion”

“Of all the transitional series that we have examined between major groups of vertebrates, one of the best documented is the transition from primitive amniotes to mammals via the synapsids, formerly known as the ‘mammal-like reptiles.’…Focusing on the lineage of synapsids, we can put together an almost continuous series of well-preserved fossils (figures given) that span the Carboniferous and Permian and straggle into the Trassic before most lineages died out…and the remaining lineages gave rise to true mammals.” (Prothero, page 271)

Prothero then gives several pages of examples and evidence of these transitional mammals, explains carefully why they are transitional, why they give clear evidence of “common descent” or macroevolution, and why creationists are wrong.

“How do the ID creationists handle this extraordinary transitional series? Wells (2000) doesn’t address it, nor does Sarfati (1999, 2002). Davis and Kenyon (2004:100-101) quote a few evolutionists out of context and even concede, ‘without a doubt, the Therapsids are highly suggestive of a Darwinian lineage.’ But they betray their complete lack of understanding of evolution and try to discount the entire example by arguing that it is not a single ancestral lineage but many different lineages. That is exactly how most evolutionary transitions work in a bushy, branching system – not as ‘missing links’ on a nonexistent ‘chain of being’ (the common creationist misunderstanding) but as multiple closely related lineages that each show progressively more mammalian characteristics.” (Prothero, page 280)

The “mammal transitions” I have are the following, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia: Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops.

Prothero concentrates on particularly the synapsids: primitive Ophiacodon, the fin-backed Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus, the predatory gorgonopsians, the weasel-like Thrinaxodon, finally to “true mammals.” The next grade up from the pelycosaurs are the therapsids, and the next are the cynodonts. You would verify all of this in such books as:

The Rise of Placental Mammals: Origins and Relationships of the Major Extant Clades by Rose/Archibald (John Hopkins Univ, 2005)
The Beginning of the Age of Mammals by Rose (John Hopkins Univ, 2006)
The Origin and Evolution of Mammals by Kemp (Oxford Univ, 2005)
After the Dinosaurs: The Age of Mammals by Prothero (Indiana Univ, 2006)
Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution, and Structure by Kielan-Jaworowska / Cifelli / Luo (Columbia Univ Press, 2004)

For a brief description of the evidence for reptile to mammal evolution, see the section in Doug Theobalds "Evidence for Macroevolution"

Thank you. Darwin’s Theory Proved. QED.

Or any number of books you can find on mammal evolution at your local library. Are you really interested in looking this up? Where do you live? I will help you out and point you to particular books at your own university library.

Phil P

 

[PhilVaz]

bear << Actually, it shows I do not agree with the theory of Darwinism. It’s not a religious issue for me. I believe it has been shown to be bad science by scientists. >>

Name the scientists. You can throw out the Discovery Institute’s “dissent from Darwinism” list. That will not count. You’ll have to name the scientists, AND quote their peer-reviewed papers or books by university publishers that reject “common descent.” When I say “Darwinism” or “evolution” that is primarily what I mean. I am not referring to any philosophical or metaphysical positions either.

bear << In all fairness to Darwin, he gave it a good shot but he has been disproven by modern science, science he simply couldn’t imagine and didn’t have access to. >>

I agree that Darwin has been superceded by modern research, but his concept of “universal common descent” or “descent with modification” is still true today and backed up by tons of evidence. And that is what I mean primarily by “evolution.”

bear << Sorry. Biological evolutin doesn’t have nearly the evidence as gravity, plate tectonics, electromagnetism, etc. If you’d like to consider it an theory in it’s infancy, maybe I can see your point. >>

Biological evolution is much older than plate tectonics. You are simply wrong on the evidence (all quotes found on my page).

From a booklet “Evolution and the Fossil Record” PDF published jointly by the American Geological Institute and The Paleontological Society:

“Evolution is the central unifying concept of natural history; it is the foundation of all of modern paleontology and biology…Biological evolution is not debated in the scientific community – organisms become new species through modification over time… ‘it simply has not been an issue for a century’ [citing Futuyma]…The crowning achievement of paleontology has been the demonstration, from the history of life, of the validity of the evolutionary theory…” (Evolution and the Fossil Record 2001 PDF, pages 1, 10, 13)

From Theodosius Dobzhansky, the famous geneticist and an Orthodox Christian:

“Let me try to make crystal clear what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution. Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant of the evidence or are resistant to evidence, owing to emotional blocks or to plain bigotry.” (Dobzhansky, “Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution” American Biology Teacher, March 1973)

From Philip Kitcher, professor of philosophy and zoology:

“Like Newton’s physics in 1800, evolutionary theory today rests on a huge record of successes. In both cases, we find a unified theory whose problem-solving strategies are applied to illuminate a host of diverse phenomena. Both theories offer problem solutions that can be subjected to rigorous independent checks. Both open up new lines of inquiry and have a history of surmounting apparent obstacles. The virtues of successful science are clearly displayed in both…Darwin is the Newton of biology. Evolutionary theory is not simply an area of science that has had some success at solving problems. It has unified biology and it has inspired important biological disciplines.” (Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism [MIT Press, 1982], page 54)

From the Botanical Society of America, representing thousands of botanists, plant biologists and scientists:

“Far from being merely a speculative notion, as implied when someone says, ‘evolution is just a theory,’ the core concepts of evolution are well documented and well confirmed. Natural selection has been repeatedly demonstrated in both field and laboratory, and descent with modification is so well documented that scientists are justified in saying that evolution is true…” (Statement on Evolution from the Botanical Society of America, 2003)

From Ernst Mayr, Professor Emeritus in the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard, called the “Darwin of the 20th century”:

“Eventually it was widely appreciated that the occurrence of evolution was supported by such an overwhelming amount of evidence that it could no longer be called a theory. Indeed, since it was as well supported by facts as was heliocentricity, evolution also had to be considered a fact, like heliocentricity…The evidence for evolution is now quite overwhelming. It is presented in great detail by Futuyma (1983, 1998), Ridley (1996), and Strickberger (1996)…” (Mayr, What Evolution Is, page 12-13)

bear << OK, I can’t help but laugh at the final paragraph. I’m quite local to USF and have had relatives and friends graduate from there. Because a book is found at USF, it hardly makes it Catholic. It’s like saying what comes out of a theologians mouth at USF is Catholic. >>

You did not understand what I wrote. The books I listed were not Catholic books. They are secular books from a university library presenting all the evidence for human evolution one would need. I also gave a link to a single article by Christians and Catholics taking a theological perspective on the issue. I also linked the 2004 ITC statement signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the head of the Commission.

Are you still laughing? I will gladly take you by the hand like a little child and guide you to the right books in the science section of St. Pete and Tampa USF library if I have to.

Phil P

 

[Bean61]

bean << OK Phil, give me the names of mammals that, through Natural Selection, somehow combined to form one species out of two seperate species. 1) The animal must be bigger than a breadbox. Gnat size animals or smaller are not included. I want to look this up. I realize that I could be all wet, but this would be a chance for you to prove Darwin’s theory. >>

I saw you mention this “two to form one species” before, and you were already corrected on that. I’m not sure why you think that is evolution, or even what that exactly means, or why it would be evidence of anything. What would be evidence for “common descent” (i.e. macroevolution) is if I can point you to ‘reptile-like mammals’ or ‘mammal-like reptiles’ (these are older terms for the transitional fossils between the reptiles and mammals). This is one of the most well-documented transitions in the fossil record. If you are going to look this up, you can find the same book I mentioned:

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Prothero (2007)

Turn to page 271, and begin reading chapter 13: “Mammalian Explosion”

“Of all the transitional series that we have examined between major groups of vertebrates, one of the best documented is the transition from primitive amniotes to mammals via the synapsids, formerly known as the ‘mammal-like reptiles.’…Focusing on the lineage of synapsids, we can put together an almost continuous series of well-preserved fossils (figures given) that span the Carboniferous and Permian and straggle into the Trassic before most lineages died out…and the remaining lineages gave rise to true mammals.” (Prothero, page 271)

Prothero then gives several pages of examples and evidence of these transitional mammals, explains carefully why they are transitional, why they give clear evidence of “common descent” or macroevolution, and why creationists are wrong.

“How do the ID creationists handle this extraordinary transitional series? Wells (2000) doesn’t address it, nor does Sarfati (1999, 2002). Davis and Kenyon (2004:100-101) quote a few evolutionists out of context and even concede, ‘without a doubt, the Therapsids are highly suggestive of a Darwinian lineage.’ But they betray their complete lack of understanding of evolution and try to discount the entire example by arguing that it is not a single ancestral lineage but many different lineages. That is exactly how most evolutionary transitions work in a bushy, branching system – not as ‘missing links’ on a nonexistent ‘chain of being’ (the common creationist misunderstanding) but as multiple closely related lineages that each show progressively more mammalian characteristics.” (Prothero, page 280)

The “mammal transitions” I have are the following, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia: Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops.

Prothero concentrates on particularly the synapsids: primitive Ophiacodon, the fin-backed Dimetrodon and Edaphosaurus, the predatory gorgonopsians, the weasel-like Thrinaxodon, finally to “true mammals.” The next grade up from the pelycosaurs are the therapsids, and the next are the cynodonts. You would verify all of this in such books as:

The Rise of Placental Mammals: Origins and Relationships of the Major Extant Clades by Rose/Archibald (John Hopkins Univ, 2005)
The Beginning of the Age of Mammals by Rose (John Hopkins Univ, 2006)
The Origin and Evolution of Mammals by Kemp (Oxford Univ, 2005)
After the Dinosaurs: The Age of Mammals by Prothero (Indiana Univ, 2006)
Mammals from the Age of Dinosaurs: Origins, Evolution, and Structure by Kielan-Jaworowska / Cifelli / Luo (Columbia Univ Press, 2004)

For a brief description of the evidence for reptile to mammal evolution, see the section in Doug Theobalds "Evidence for Macroevolution"

Thank you. Darwin’s Theory Proved. QED.

Or any number of books you can find on mammal evolution at your local library. Are you really interested in looking this up? Where do you live? I will help you out and point you to particular books at your own university library.

Phil P

 

[bear06]

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Prothero (2007)

It really depends on the scientists you actually consult, doesn’t it? Here’s a, ID rebuttle to the book you favor.

evolutionnews.org/2008/04/michael_shermers_factfree_atta_1.html

Exploding Shermer’s Cambrian Argument
While attacking Stephen Meyer’s article in Proceedings for the Biological Society of Washington, Shermer briefly discusses the Cambrian Explosion, a major topic in Meyer’s paper. Shermer states that the explosion is just an illusion because “according to paleontologist Donald Prothero, in his 2007 magisterial book Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why it Matters (Columbia University Press): ‘The major groups of invertebrate fossils do not all appear suddenly at the base of the Cambrian but are spaced out over strata spanning 80 million years—hardly an instantaneous ‘explosion’! Some groups appear tens of millions of years earlier than others. And preceding the Cambrian explosion was a long slow buildup to the first appearance of typical Cambrian shelled invertebrates.’" Is that correct? Prothero’s book is hard to take seriously because, as we shall see, it reads more like a polemic than a serious academic treatment. Consider these statements from Prothero’s book:

“[T]he creationist political pressure, propaganda, and lies are not restricted to public schools. In many smaller colleges … the professors are just as intimidated by creationist bullies who are eager to disrupt class.” (Prothero, pg. 354; Note that Prothero provides zero documentation here of this anecdotal evidence.)

“If the fundamentalists continue to expand their political power, are we in for another Inquisition, with the religious fanatics suppressing and destroying books and evidence, and harassing anyone who doesn’t agree with them?” (Prothero, pg. 355)

“Many scientists and authors have written how uplifting and liberating the scientific worldview can be for humankind, especially in comparison to the vengeful God of the Old Testament.” (Prothero, pg. 358)

Prothero’s book is one with an agenda that clearly falls short of a calm, collected, objective scientific analysis. Incidentally, directly following the last quote from Prothero, he goes on to praise none other than Michael Shermer—the unreligious skeptic—for purportedly showing how religious people can accept evolution. You know, the same Shermer who wrote that, “[t]here is no God, intelligent designer, or anything resembling the divinity as proffered by the world’s religions.”

Regardless, if we want to understand the Cambrian explosion, we have to turn to serious scientific treatments, not Prothero’s polemic. So what do textbooks say? A 2001 invertebrate zoology textbook (that is a serious science textbook) states:

Most of the animal phyla that are represented in the fossil record first appear, “fully formed,” in the Cambrian some 550 million years ago…The fossil record is therefore of no help with respect to the origin and early diversification of the various animal phyla.

(R.S.K. Barnes, P. Calow & P.J.W. Olive, The Invertebrates: A New Synthesis, pages 9–10 (3rd ed., Blackwell Sci. Publications, 2001).)

In fact, Richard Dawkins conceded in 1986 regarding the Cambrian fauna that, “It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.” (The Blind Watchmaker, 1986, pg. 229-230.) In another very serious treatment of the subject, John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry, leaders in evolutionary biology, wrote in 1995 that the “Cambrian explosion remains a puzzle” for Darwinian theorists despite the discovery of a some Pre-Cambrian fossils:
Some 540 million years ago, at the beginning of the Cambrian, there appeared an array of multicellular marine animals, including the major phyla that exist today—coelenterates, platyhelminths, annelids, arthropods, molluscs, echinoderms and others. Chordates are also present in the Cambrian: they are not known from the earliest deposits, in which only hard parts are preserved, but are present in the slightly later Burgess Shale, in which soft-bodied forms are preserved. Forty years ago, this sudden appearance of metazoan fossils was not only a puzzle but something of an embarrassment: the absence of any known fossils from earlier rocks was a weapon widely used by creationists. Today, the fossil evidence for prokaryotes goes back 3000 million years, and for protists some 1000 million years. The Cambrian explosion remains a puzzle, however, which has been only fitfully illuminated by the discovery of the enigmatic soft-bodied Ediacaran fauna, which had a worldwide distribution between 580 and 560 million years ago. There are still doubts about how these fossils should be interpreted (Simon Conway Morris, 1993).
(John Maynard Smith and Eörs Szathmáry, The Major Transitions in Evolution, page 203 (Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1995).)

Continued…

 

[bear06]

…continued

It seems that Prothero has glossed over the real problems with evolutionary explanations of the Cambrian fauna in a book that hardly looks like a serious treatment of this subject. In the end, Shermer needs to apply some of his famous skepticism to his own sources. Moreover, Meyer’s peer-reviewer-approved argument still carries great weight. As Meyer explains, the explosion of new biological information in the Cambrian period is best explained by an intelligent cause:
Analysis of the problem of the origin of biological information, therefore, exposes a deficiency in the causal powers of natural selection that corresponds precisely to powers that agents are uniquely known to possess. Intelligent agents have foresight. Such agents can select functional goals before they exist. They can devise or select material means to accomplish those ends from among an array of possibilities and then actualize those goals in accord with a preconceived design plan or set of functional requirements. Rational agents can constrain combinatorial space with distant outcomes in mind. The causal powers that natural selection lacks–almost by definition–are associated with the attributes of consciousness and rationality–with purposive intelligence. Thus, by invoking design to explain the origin of new biological information, contemporary design theorists are not positing an arbitrary explanatory element unmotivated by a consideration of the evidence. Instead, they are positing an entity possessing precisely the attributes and causal powers that the phenomenon in question requires as a condition of its production and explanation.

(Stephen C. Meyer, "The Origin of Biological Information and the Higher Taxonomic Categories,” Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington, 117(2):213-239 (2004).)

 

[Bean61]

bean << OK Phil, give me the names of mammals that, through Natural Selection, somehow combined to form one species out of two seperate species. 1) The animal must be bigger than a breadbox. Gnat size animals or smaller are not included. I want to look this up. I realize that I could be all wet, but this would be a chance for you to prove Darwin’s theory. >>

I saw you mention this “two to form one species” before, and you were already corrected on that. I’m not sure why you think that is evolution, or even what that exactly means, or why it would be evidence of anything. What would be evidence for “common descent” (i.e. macroevolution) is if I can point you to ‘reptile-like mammals’ or ‘mammal-like reptiles’ (these are older terms for the transitional fossils between the reptiles and mammals). This is one of the most well-documented transitions in the fossil record. If you are going to look this up, you can find the same book I mentioned:

Evolution: What the Fossils Say and Why It Matters by Prothero (2007)

Turn to page 271, and begin reading chapter 13: “Mammalian Explosion”

“Of all the transitional series that we have examined between major groups of vertebrates, one of the best documented is the transition from primitive amniotes to mammals via the synapsids, formerly known as the ‘mammal-like reptiles.’…Focusing on the lineage of synapsids, we can put together an almost continuous series of well-preserved fossils (figures given) that span the Carboniferous and Permian and straggle into the Trassic before most lineages died out…and the remaining lineages gave rise to true mammals.” (Prothero, page 271)

Prothero then gives several pages of examples and evidence of these transitional mammals, explains carefully why they are transitional, why they give clear evidence of “common descent” or macroevolution, and why creationists are wrong.

“How do the ID creationists handle this extraordinary transitional series? Wells (2000) doesn’t address it, nor does Sarfati (1999, 2002). Davis and Kenyon (2004:100-101) quote a few evolutionists out of context and even concede, ‘without a doubt, the Therapsids are highly suggestive of a Darwinian lineage.’ But they betray their complete lack of understanding of evolution and try to discount the entire example by arguing that it is not a single ancestral lineage but many different lineages. That is exactly how most evolutionary transitions work in a bushy, branching system – not as ‘missing links’ on a nonexistent ‘chain of being’ (the common creationist misunderstanding) but as multiple closely related lineages that each show progressively more mammalian characteristics.” (Prothero, page 280)

The “mammal transitions” I have are the following, ranging from the pelycosauria, therapsida, cynodonta, up to primitive mammalia: Paleothyris, Protoclepsydrops, Clepsydrops, Archaeothyris, Varanops, Haptodus, Dimetrodon, Sphenacodon, Biarmosuchia, Procynosuchus, Dvinia, Permocynodon, Thrinaxodon, Cynognathus, Diademodon, Probelesodon, Probainognathus, Exaeretodon, Oligokyphus, Kayentatherium, Pachygenelus, Diarthrognathus, Adelobasileus, Sinoconodon, Kuehneotherium, Eozostrodon, Morganucodon, Haldanodon, Peramus, Endotherium, Kielantherium, Aegialodon, Steropodon, Vincelestes, Pariadens, Kennalestes, Asioryctes, Cimolestes, Procerberus, Gypsonictops.

Prothero concentrates on particularly the synapsids: primitive Ophiacodon, the fin-backed Dimet

Thank you. Darwin’s Theory Proved. QED.

Or any number of books you can find on mammal evolution at your local library. Are you really interested in looking this up? Where do you live? I will help you out and point you to particular books at your own university library.

Phil P

Phil,
Give me a break! Like I said previously: Darwinist play fast and loose, and they love smoke and mirrors.

Look, if there were evidence of common descent then it would be equivelent of two species coming together (somehow) and forming a completely different species.
You have no evidence of this happening. Please give your above explanation to the third grader that lives next door to you.

One thing that scientist in this field have come up with is the fact that 500 million years ago there was a lot of vegetation of all kinds. Different kinds. The earth was covered with it. One problem though: just before this time there was nothing. Those plants didn’t have anything to have come from. It was as if they were just put there.

About 350 million years ago there were animals that ranged all over the earth. Scientists found their remains. One problem, there was nothing that came before them. It was as if they just appeared. They were descended from nothing!!

Darwinians, like you, are always trying to find how everything got here. You search and search and will swallow any silly thing as long as God isn’t attached to the explanation.

I’m going to give you a clue about human evolution Phil: The first man was the individual that God put a human soul into. Before this happened, there were no men. God did it!! He created man in His own image.

You and Darwin are wasting your time and energy!

 

[bear06]

Name the scientists. You can throw out the Discovery Institute’s “dissent from Darwinism” list. That will not count.

That will not count why? Because you say so? They disagree with me so you can’t use them. Please. What’s the point of further conversing if you decide what the rules are to the discussion and what can and cannot be discussed?

You’ll have to name the scientists, AND quote their peer-reviewed papers or books by university publishers that reject “common descent.” When I say “Darwinism” or “evolution” that is primarily what I mean. I am not referring to any philosophical or metaphysical positions either.

Really? Are you going to provide this info for your sources?

bear << OK, I can’t help but laugh at the final paragraph. I’m quite local to USF and have had relatives and friends graduate from there. Because a book is found at USF, it hardly makes it Catholic. It’s like saying what comes out of a theologians mouth at USF is Catholic. >>

You did not understand what I wrote. The books I listed were not Catholic books. They are secular books from a university library presenting all the evidence for human evolution one would need. I also gave a link to a single article by Christians and Catholics taking a theological perspective on the issue. I also linked the 2004 ITC statement signed by Cardinal Ratzinger, the head of the Commission.

Sigh! Yes, I did understand you perfectly. It’s not surprising you’d find these books there.

Are you still laughing?

I will gladly take you by the hand like a little child and guide you to the right books in the science section of St. Pete and Tampa USF library if I have to.

oooh! So smug!

 

[drpmjhess]

Look, if there were evidence of common descent then it would be equivelent of two species coming together (somehow) and forming a completely different species. You have no evidence of this happening. Please give your above explanation to the third grader that lives next door to you.!

Bean61, I’m beginning to think a third grader would think circles around you. I have a second grader myself, and he was astonished to read above what you think counts as evolution. Evolution has nothing at all to do with “two species coming together (somehow) and forming a completely different species.” Why do you keep repeating something that has nothing at all to do with evolution, even after you’ve been corrected by several people who know what they are talking about?

Petrus