National Academies book on evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter surgei
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
ricmat said:
Who on this thread insists that the bible must be read literally?
Click to expand...
Why must I answer that? I made a general statement about the type of person’s who refuse to examine evidence and cling to a pesonal interpretation of the bible or anything for that matter that is limited to a literal word for word understanding. There are without a doubt several fundamentalist Catholics on this site, if not on this thread. They espouse a literal belief in YEC and deny evolution soley because they cannot find it in the bible or a definitive statement in Church teachings. That is not in accordance with what the Church believes. Such adherence to the bible in this way is akin to intellectual suicide. This is well documented in psychology and there are a number of books on the subject…see www.religion-online for several of them all online for you to read. Additionally see my post today, under the Posner link to a whole series on fundamentalism.

What is important to understand about fundamentalism is that it is not an intellectual choice one makes, but a psychological need one fulfills by clinging to a belief system that makes one feel safe and secure with all important issues determined in a simple right or wrong dicotomy. It will, if adopted completely cause such a person to espouse a reality whichi is in direct opposition to what most consider rational and obvious, even when it means they are ridiculed and made fun of. They seem to relish the fact that they are in a small special group of “true believers”. The especially do not like authority, especially when that authority starts moving away toward what they lump together as modern thinking. Then they are likely to out-pope the pope if you will. Recent popes are not sufficiently conservative from their point of view.
 
I would certainly like to know what jellyfish species living today is exactly the same as one found hundreds of millions of years ago.

BTW, the coelacanths found today are very, very much different than the fossil ones that lived hundreds of millions of years ago. They aren’t even in the same genus, much less the same species.
 
SpiritMeadow said:
Why must I answer that?
Click to expand...
Because your post was made in response to another post which referred to another particular person, whom your post seems to imply is a YECr / fundamentalist. Is that person a YECr? I don’t know. Do you?
 
That paper didn’t claim or even hint that species alive today came into existence 300 million years ago and no newspaper article changes that fact.
Click to expand...
Hi Tim,

As I read it, in the number of newspaper reports I posted that the species alive today came into existence 300 million years ago.

This is from the Live Science site that I referenced – they’re showing the photo of an actual “modern beetle”. The caption says:

*An endangered tiger beetle from North America’s east coast. Scientists believe it and most modern beetles appeared about 300 million years ago. *

That’s pretty simple. Scientists believe** it **… appeared about 300 years ago. The same beetle that is pictured, “pre-dates” the dinosaur.

Modern beetles, “evolved early” into thousands of species.

Scientists do not understand how this happened.

“Today’s plethora of beetle species were thought to have blossomed 140 million years ago, during the rise of flowering plants.”

Evolutionists are claiming that the diversity of 350,000 beetle species are due to the many different flowering plants in their environment. :confused: But this is also said to be incorrect.

"It was the six-legged insect’s ability to adapt that has seen it safely through the last 300m years, according to a new scientific study."

If the beetle couldn’t adapt it would have either evolved into something else (supposedly) or it would be extinct. Thus, its ability has seen it safely through the last 300m years.

Again, that’s very clear. The insect has survived 300m years.

New research hints that modern-day versions of the insects are far older than any tyrannosaur that trod the Earth.

news.aol.com/story/_a/modern-beetles-predate-dinosaurs/20071226135209990001

Again, modern day beetles are older than dinosaurs. The modern day versions are the beetles we see today. They are the same as the beetles that were around before the dinosaurs. That’s what the story says.

Here’s an atheist evolutionist site:
shalinisehkar.com/2007/12/according-to-new-study-modern-beetles.html

“Previously, modern beetles were thought to have appeared in the fossil record 140 million years ago. Now, a new study published in the journal Science pushes their appearance back to 300 million years ago. This study shows that modern beetles apparently predate the dinosaurs by about 70 million years.”

The site owner, an atheist-evolutionist does not dispute the story. The comment box does not dispute the story. These are people who actually believe in evolution. They accept what it says – “modern day beetles” – those are the beetles you can find crawling around today – “predate the dinosaurs”.

Again, that’s very clear. Today’s beetles are the same as they were 300 m years ago. This is not disputed on an atheist-evolutionist site.

One comment did say this:

**So, the authors discarded the idea of beetle evolucionary [sic] radiation after the explosion of flowering plants in the Early Cretaceous. **

Again, evolutionists thought that 350,000 species of beetles “evolved” rapidly because many flowering plants “evolved” also. But now, they say that’s not quite right.

Here’s the atheist toolbox site – atheist evolutionists.

atheisttoolbox.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4858&sid=ed7eb4a08fd04f92ccae72c1b437d851

They quote the story:

"Today’s plethora of beetle species were thought to have blossomed 140 million years ago, during the rise of flowering plants. But the new study of beetle DNA and fossils, published in the Dec. 21 issue of the journal Science, pushes their appearance back to 300 million years ago. "

Nobody on the site disputes this.

The Ars Technica site:

arstechnica.com/journals/science.ars/2007/12/24/beetles-here-for-the-long-haul

Beetles represent nearly 350,000 distinct species of animals, and account for 25% of life on Earth. Why this is so has been debated by scientists for decades, but no clear answers have emerged. Modern beetles have existed on this planet since the time of the dinosaurs, and previously, their survival and diversification was attributed to them being herbivores and to the rise of flowering plants in the Cretaceous era.

Again, very clear. Modern beetles - those living today – have existed on the planet (the same beetles existed) since the time of the dinosaurs.

The same beetles – in 300m years, they haven’t gotten any smarter. Their brains are the same size. They didn’t get any fur or better teeth or bigger legs – they’re the same. Mysteriously, they “evolved rapidly” into 350,000 species, then they stayed the same for the last 300 million years.

Here’s an interesting thread from Yahoo Answers.
au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20071226072804AAOqC0A
 
I’m still waiting to hear the “species” that Reggie thinks lasted hundreds of millions of years.

I suspect he merely cut and pasted something from a newspaper that he didn’t understand.

Just for the record, there is no such species. Tiger beetles(for example) are not a species. They are a large and diverse group that has evolved greatly over time.
 
From Live Science:

livescience.com/animals/071226-tough-beetles.html

**Today’s plethora of beetle species **were thought to have blossomed 140 million years ago, during the rise of flowering plants. But the new study of beetle DNA and fossils, published in the Dec. 21 issue of the journal Science, pushes their appearance back to 300 million years ago.

It has been stated repeatedly on several science-oriented sites that “modern beetle species” were thought to have arisen during the era where “flowering plants” emerged. This was initially claimed as the “reason” why we had 350,000 beetle species – because supposedly, all of those beetles were eating different flowers, so they had to evolve differently. :confused:

Now the new science says that this story (fable) doesn’t quite work because “modern beetle species” predate the dinosaur and pre-date the flowering plants that supposedly caused their evolution.

The “new theory” is that beetles diversified because they “evolved quickly” during the Jurassic period.

The fact that modern day beetles are the same as they were 300 million years ago is not disputed. I’ve posted atheist-evolutionist sites that did not dispute that. I posted a site dominated by pro-evolutionists who merely said “so what? we know that modern beetle species are that old. Why is that a problem?”

Actually, aside from the fact that “modern day beetles pre-date the dinosaurs” (as it has been affirmed countless times) – this notion that the 350,000 beetle species supposedly evolved because they were eating different flowers is another remarkable bit of “scientific fact”.

Beetles supposedly ate different kinds of flowers and therefore random mutation and natural selection decided that they should diversify into 350,000 species.

But to be fair, scientists admit that they don’t really know how or why that happened. They’ve refuted the flower-eating theory.
 
reggieM said:
From Live Science:

livescience.com/animals/071226-tough-beetles.html

**Today’s plethora of beetle species **were thought to have blossomed 140 million years ago, during the rise of flowering plants. But the new study of beetle DNA and fossils, published in the Dec. 21 issue of the journal Science, pushes their appearance back to 300 million years ago.

It has been stated repeatedly on several science-oriented sites that “modern beetle species” were thought to have arisen during the era where “flowering plants” emerged. This was initially claimed as the “reason” why we had 350,000 beetle species – because supposedly, all of those beetles were eating different flowers, so they had to evolve differently. :confused:

Now the new science says that this story (fable) doesn’t quite work because “modern beetle species” predate the dinosaur and pre-date the flowering plants that supposedly caused their evolution.

The “new theory” is that beetles diversified because they “evolved quickly” during the Jurassic period.

The fact that modern day beetles are the same as they were 300 million years ago is not disputed. I’ve posted atheist-evolutionist sites that did not dispute that. I posted a site dominated by pro-evolutionists who merely said “so what? we know that modern beetle species are that old. Why is that a problem?”

Actually, aside from the fact that “modern day beetles pre-date the dinosaurs” (as it has been affirmed countless times) – this notion that the 350,000 beetle species supposedly evolved because they were eating different flowers is another remarkable bit of “scientific fact”.

Beetles supposedly ate different kinds of flowers and therefore random mutation and natural selection decided that they should diversify into 350,000 species.

But to be fair, scientists admit that they don’t really know how or why that happened. They’ve refuted the flower-eating theory.
Click to expand...
Reggie, I’m confused. You’re going to have to explain this to me. I’m looking at this article and everything about it says, beetles evolved 300 million years ago (exactly when I said they did) and continue to diversify. Doesn’t diversify mean “evolve”? If it doesn’t, I really misunderstood all of that stuff I studied in school.

What sentence exactly, in any of the articles you listed says, "beetles haven’t evolved in 300 million years. I can’t find a single one. It says modern beetles evolve, that modern beetles can trace their lineage to that time, but no where does it say that “the species alive today haven’t evolved in the last 300 million years”. The researcher who presented the paper definitely talked about how beetles did evolve, and continue to do so.

If this paper had evidence that beetles hadn’t changed in 300 million years, it wouldn’t be hard to find. It would be on the front page of every paper in the world. Yet, it isn’t. Please, pull out a direct quote from the paper that says, exactly, “beetles have not evolved in 300 milllion years”.
 
ricmat said:
Because your post was made in response to another post which referred to another particular person, whom your post seems to imply is a YECr / fundamentalist. Is that person a YECr? I don’t know. Do you?
Click to expand...
Point me to the exact quote you are concerned about and I’ll do my best to respond. I can’t in a vacuum.
 
creationism or I.D.,wont be hurt by it…Creationism can only get destroyed in the court room,and laughed out of the classroom so many times…Thats why the are ZERO “creation scientists” who actually are credible enough to lecture at top universities…I wouldnt be surprised if that was the case as well for state universities
 
Sideline – I posted a link to a photo of a Tiger Beetle. It was a photo taken recently of a beetle living on earth today. It was from the LiveScience.com site (a secular, mainstream science site).

The text read:

*An endangered tiger beetle from North America’s east coast. Scientists believe it and most modern beetles appeared about 300 million years ago. *

Notice that they showed the picture. Then they said “it appeared 300 million years ago”.

That’s when the beetles “evolved” and “diversified”. That’s when 350,000 species were “created by evolution” supposedly.

I’ll have to turn the question back to you. How and when did that particular beetle “continue to evolve” after the time period stated in the article? How are other beetle species evolving today? What are the step-by-step processes of beetle evolution from after that time? As the story made clear to me, beetle evolution has been in a period of stasis since they “first emerged”. That’s the whole point of the articles I posted.

Now your question on why nobody has said “beetles haven’t evolved in 300 million years” is a good one in some ways. It’s not a good question because I think you can see what the stories are saying. You can see that modern day beetles pre-existed the dinosaurs. As one article stated, “**modern versions **of the beetles” are 300 million years old.

That means the beetles we see today, are the same as those dated 300 million years old. Nobody disputes that, as I showed.

But at the same time, nobody (except myself and a few other critics) have pointed out that this means that beetles haven’t evolved since their first appearance.

If you’re looking for someone to say that, then it won’t happen.

But the truth is easy to see – modern beetles are the same as those found in ancient fossils.

At the same time, nobody will say that “beetles haven’t evolved since then”.

To me, that is as clear as day – it’s a coverup of the fact. It’s re-wording the article to obscure the dirty secret within it.

Other people have recognized the problem immediately. I showed the talk-origins site (pro-evolution) and they grasped it immediately. I showed an Orthodox Christian site that saw it immediately also. I also quoted from an intelligent design site where they wrote a long article about this topic – they saw the same conclusion in the facts presented.

But would I expect the Darwinist mainstream of science and news publications to say “beetles haven’t evolved in 300 million years”? Well, even though the news story made that fact clear - no, they’re not going to publish that simple and logical conclusion from the story.

It’s a far too dangerous thing to admit.
 
There is no such thing as “the tiger beetle”, Reggie. You might as well say “the hawk.” There are many, many kinds of tiger beetles, a highly successful and diverse group.

Which species of tiger beetle do you think has remained unchanged for 300 million years, and what is your evidence for it?

There are a few surviving genera of primitive tiger beetles ( e.g. Cylindriformus) which are large and flightless, and less adapted than more evolved genera, but no species of them, so far as I know, has been around for 300 million years. Which species is that?
 
Insects And Ailments!!! Since we’ve been talking about beetles, I have to take a moment to air my grievance by being totally honest, I have a huge problem with them in my beautifully divine garden. Those beetles and caterpillars are chewing insects.:mad: * If leaves are perforated with many small holes, uniform in size and appearing to have been hit by a gun blast delivering small bird shot, the trouble is probably due to flea beetles. Use a rotenone preparation.* (1)

I’m all for Flower Power! Lady bugs are the best beetle to have in your garden. They live off of whiteflys, mites, bollworm, and mealybugs, scales, cabbage moths, tomatoe hornworms, and aphids. Plus they are cute 🙂 But there will never ever be a ONENESS between me and those pesty insects that have no respect for beauty nor is there a ONENESS between humans as is evident. (A simple fact of life. Truth is that diversity doesn’t constitute a oneness. duh! Simple logic for those who have the ability to think.) And, some beetles are disgusting such as the Dung beetle that eats dung. (yuck) Banded elm bark beetle (Scolytus schevyrewi ) is deadly as sin, killing off trees in the United States and Asia. (2) The list goes on and on…. (I’ll return later to discuss this further with everyone. God willing. There appears to be need of futher education on this topic. .)

The only thing beetles (insect) and humans have in common is smell. (3) They have an antenna and I have a nose. 😛 I’ll stick with the nose. Thank you very much! 😃 :blessyou:

1.oldandsold.com/articles02/houseplants7.shtml
http://www.oldandsold.com/articles02/houseplants7.shtml

2.spfnic.fs.fed.us/exfor/data/pestreports.cfm?pestidval=163&langdisplay=english
http://spfnic.fs.fed.us/exfor/data/pestreports.cfm?pestidval=163&langdisplay=english

3.physorg.com/news10150.html


p.s. I found a 4 leaf clover in a used book! :shamrock2: One of my zillion hobbies is pressing flowers and turning them into pictures. 😃 Flower Power! 👍
 
wildleafblower said:
p.s. I found a 4 leaf clover in a used book! :shamrock2: One of my zillion hobbies is pressing flowers and turning them into pictures. 😃 Flower Power! 👍
Click to expand...
What book was it? I once sold a book and realize that I forgot to take my four leaf clover out. It would be wacky if it was the same one. I know it’s unlikely, but the book was “Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency”.
 
Sideline said:
What book was it? I once sold a book and realize that I forgot to take my four leaf clover out. It would be wacky if it was the same one. I know it’s unlikely, but the book was “Dirk Gently’s Holistic Detective Agency”.
Click to expand...
🙂 **The Joy of London and other Essays **by John O’London (Wilfred Whitten). It’s an absolutely grand book with a written inscription, “To Mary, with love from Les. England, 1944.” The four leaf clover was tucked between pages 200-201. 🙂 I found the book in a used bookshop.

Sideline, I never heard of the book you mentioned so looked it up. It’s fiction. I don’t read fiction but love to watch flicks that are make believe. 😃 The worst books that I’ve come across are those that are creation science! I’ll be touching base on those irrational books later. Especially those Earth-based Goddess religious ones, *New Age *of Aquarius and Christian gnosticism, etc. rolleyes: Talk about muck in the disguise of science.

Personally, I’ll stick to a positive, coherent and contemporary map for my spiritual journey. The Catechism of the Catholic Church which Pope John Paul II calls it, “a special gift” and my bible and dear friends that uplift my spirit.😉 And when it comes to real science I read only the best from the best qualified in their specific field of knowledge. The list is long.😃 The reading extremely informative.👍 It’s always a trail blazing adventure for me. 😉
 
ricmat said:
This was your quote in which you referred to a post made by Sideline to reggieM:
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3182249&postcount=118

and here is Sideline’s original post to reggieM
forums.catholic-questions.org/showpost.php?p=3180586&postcount=116

So it looks like who you are pointing to is probably reggieM.
Click to expand...
That seems to me what he professes. If he doesn’t, I’m sure he’ll set me straight. I was to a degree also speaking generally however to a class of posters.
 
reggieM said:
The text read:

An endangered tiger beetle from North America’s east coast. Scientists believe it and most modern beetles appeared about 300 million years ago.

I’ll have to turn the question back to you. How and when did that particular beetle “continue to evolve” after the time period stated in the article? How are other beetle species evolving today? What are the step-by-step processes of beetle evolution from after that time? As the story made clear to me, beetle evolution has been in a period of stasis since they “first emerged”. That’s the whole point of the articles I posted.
Click to expand...
I am no scientist and have no expertise whatsoever, but if you are asking what the above statement means, its quite simple. Basic english, basic in every way. It means simply this:

It ( a type of beetle) and other “modern” beetles appeared (in the fossil record undoubtedly) about 300 million years ago. It does not say anything about their 'evolution" being aborted or stagnant since then. Zip. It simply has not stated anything in that statement about how that evolution occurred. It may well have in other statements, but that one does not refer to anything about the subject you desire. Why do you think it says that evolution went into some “stasis?”
 
Maybe an illustration is in order.

This is a tiger beetle:

http://www.thebugmaniac.be/alainimages/beetles/cicindelidae/mantichora scabra.jpg

So is this one:

http://nathist.sdstate.edu/SMIRCOL/images/ambly2.gif

Note the heavy body, fused elytra (wing covers) which keep it from flying.

Here is a more recently evolved one:

http://members.aol.com/askdrjay/c_sexguttata_2.jpg

This one is highly active and quickly skims over the ground in short flights. Hard to even realize it’s a beetle.

And this is just one family of beetles. Notice the great amount of variation that has occured since the first beetles. Take a look at this:



And this…



All these evolved since beetles appeared. And these are just the oddest ones I know about, and have pictures for. Obviously, there’s been a whole lot of evolving going on.
 
Great. Now, when one of those beetles develops into a fish, or a bird, or a snail, let me know.
 
(Barbarian shows the great amount of evolution in beetles over several hundred millions of years)
Great. Now, when one of those beetles develops into a fish, or a bird, or a snail, let me know.
Click to expand...
That would be like saying “OK, humans evolved from apes, but tell me when humans become birds.” That’s not how evolution works. You invented something of your own imagination, and now want me to defend it.

The differences among beetles is greater than the differences among primates. But, of course, it takes millions of years.

Yours is the expected creationist response; “OK, so that’s change, but I want you to show me change so great that no human could live long enough to see it.”
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top