Pope Benedict admits evidence for evolution

  • Thread starter Thread starter Montalban
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
dcharlesworth said:
Alec, I checked out the site, and under their heading for recent transitional forms they have outlined 6.
Click to expand...
I don’t know who you mean by ‘they’ - it’s my site. Creationists promote the absurd fallacy that there are no transitional fossils - just one transitional is enough to prove them wrong. Six is six times more than needed. And there are thousands.
You have listed a number above, that I will take your word for. This is such a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the millions of species we currently have today, forget about the many more that must have existed through history.
Click to expand...
Sure, but fossilisation of tetrapods is rare, so why do you think we should see millions of transitional species? Nevertheless the fact is that almost every fossil older than the Pleistocene can be shown to be a transitional between an older form and a modern one. How do you explain the hundreds of thousands of transitional fossil species that we have found?
You mentioned that horses do not become pigs. Well where did pigs come from? Where is the 93% pig and 7% somthing else? There should be all kind of examples for you to show me.
Click to expand...
OK: pigs are artiodactyls (which group includes pigs, peccarines, hippos, camels, llamas, deer, cattle, goats, sheep, giraffes, antelopes) and here is a small selection of transitional fossil species leading to artiodactyls and then within the artiodactyls specifically to modern pigs (Sus).

Transitional species within placental mammals (we can do the transitional species leading from early tetrapods to placental mammals another time, don’t you think? Would you like me to?) leading to Ungulata:
Zhelestidae
Kumelestes
Kumsuperus
Sorlestes (3 separate species)
Taslestes
Aspanlestes
Avitotherium
Gallolestes (3 separate species)
Lainodon
Labes (3 separate species)
Valentinella
Alostera

From Ungulata to artiodactyl-like ungulates:
Zhelestes (3 separate species)
Parazhelestes (3 separate species)
Eoungulatum
Hilalia (5 separate species)

To Artiodactyls:
Olsenia
Andrewsarchus
Goniacondon
Eoconodon (6 separate species)
Triisodon
Stelocyon
Microclaenodon

From Artiodactyls to the pig-like Artiodactyls:
Antiacodon (3 separate species)
Homacodon
Bunodentus
Gobiohyus
Helohyus (4 separate species)
Poeprodon
Achaenodon (2 separate species)

To the ancestor of pigs and peccarines
Aksyiria

From the ancestor of pigs and peccarines to modern pigs
Mixtotherium
Aureliachoerus
Propalaeochoerus
Huaxiachoerus
Egatochoerus
Siamochoerus (2 separate species)
Odoichoerus
Palaeochoerus
Emichoerus
Mabokopithecus
Hemichoerus
Paradoxodonides
Cainochoerus
Nguruwe (2 separate species)
Kenyasus
Libyocochoerus (3 separate species)
Megalochoerus
Kubanochoerus
Miochoerus
Namachoerus
Korynochoerus
Hippopotamodon (5 separate species)
Eumaiochoerus
Kolpochoerus
Korynochoerus
Metridiochoerus
Microstonyx
Molarochoerus
Potamochoeroides
Propotamochoerus
Sinohyus
Sivahyus
Stylochoerus
Microstonyx
and then Sus

Enough to be going on with?

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Montalban said:
Which one of these did God deceive us on?

Here is a short list of changed theories.
“Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (Neanderthal man) - 150 years ago Neanderthal reconstructions were stooped and very much like an ‘ape-man’. It is now admitted that the supposedly stooped posture was due to disease and that Neanderthal is just a variation of the human kind.
Ramapithecus - once widely regarded as the ancestor of humans, it has now been realised that it is merely an extinct type of orangutan (an ape).
Eoanthropus (Piltdown man) - a hoax based on a human skull cap and an orangutan’s jaw. It was widely publicized as the missing link for 40 years.
Hesperopithecus (Nebraska man) - based on a single tooth of a type of pig now only living in Paraguay.
Pithecanthropus (Java man) - now renamed to Homo erectus.
Australopithecus africanus - this was at one time promoted as the missing link. It is no longer considered to be on the line from apes to humans. It is very ape-like.
Sinanthropus (Peking man) was once presented as an ape-man but has now been reclassified as Homo erectus.”
answersingenesis.org/Docs/263.asp
Click to expand...
If you get your science from the Answers in Genesis website then you will be sadly deceived. AIG contributors have all been discredited and none of them are competent scientists working in the fields in which they write. If the garbage above is the best argument they can produce against the common ancestry of man and other primates, then one would have to be gullible to believe it and completely gullible and naive to present it as evidence.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Believing that evolution occurs and believing in the Bible are not mutually exclusive. The Bible is not a scientific explanation of the beginning of human existence, it is a love story about the God who loves His creations so much that He set up a perfect place for them to thrive and love. He also gave His beloved creations a free will to choose or oppose Him. Without it, their love of Him would mean nothing.

The truth is we do not know how He did it - I’m just glad He did.
 
Alec

If the object of this thread is to throw as many random words up as possible, I must concede.

Where can I verify what you are saying? If it is in fact the truth I am interested, however I have googled now a multitude of these names you have listed to absolutely no avail.

How do scientists decided these are linked? I am assuming by looks. (I stand to be corrected) How similar is similar enough to draw a resonable conclusion that the two are linked? If this is the case, are there any photos associated with all of these things?
 
Transitional species within placental mammals (msg.120) are in the Kingdom Animalia Linnaeus, Domain Eukaryota - eukaryotes.
sn2000.taxonomy.nl/Taxonomicon/TaxonTree.aspx?id=71606

Response to msg. 119 : “May the Eternal One, our Father in heaven, bless every effort to eliminate from our world any misuse of religion as an excuse for hatred or violence. May He bless all of you, your families and your communities.” (Pope Benedict XVI-October 12, 2006 (ADDRESS OF HIS HOLINESS BENEDICT XVI TO THE DELEGATION OF THE ANTI-DEFAMATION LEAGUE, Hall of Popes, Thursday, 12 October 2006)
vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/october/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20061012_anti-defamation_en.html
 
dcharles << Alec If the object of this thread is to throw as many random words up as possible, I must concede. >>

Ah ha two can play that game:

tiny non-bony things to small bony things: Pikaia, Yunnanozoon, Haikouella, Conodonts, Cathaymyrus, Myllokunmingia, Haikouichthys

fishy things to leggy things: Eusthenopteron, Sterropterygion, Panderichthys, Elpistostege, Obruchevichthys, Kenichthys, Tiktaalik, Acanthostega, Ichthyostega, Tulerpeton

scaly things to wingy things: Eoraptor, Herrerasaurus, Ceratosaurus, Allosaurus, Compsognathus, Sinosauropteryx, Protarchaeopteryx, Caudipteryx, Velociraptor, Sinovenator, Beipiaosaurus, Sinornithosaurus, Microraptor, Archaeopteryx, Rahonavis, Confuciusornis, Sinornis, Patagopteryx, Hesperornis, Apsaravis, Ichthyornis, Columba

reptile to mammal things: 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, etc.

I win! 😃 Some of the names may be updated, check Alec for the current correct lists. 👍

dcharles << Where can I verify what you are saying? If it is in fact the truth I am interested, however I have googled now a multitude of these names you have listed to absolutely no avail. >>

Some of them have their own Wikipedia entry, others may be more obscure. To verify, see these articles and books:

On tiny to small things, both Christian authors:
The Precambrian to Cambrian Fossil Record and Transitional Forms by Keith Miller
Transitional Forms and the Evolution of Phyla by Glenn Morton

On fishy to leggy:
Gaining Ground: The Origin and Early Evolution of Tetrapods by Jennifer Clack (Indiana Univ Press, 2002)

On dinos to birdy:
Dinosaurs of the Air: The Evolution and Loss of Flight in Dinosaurs and Birds by Gregory Paul (John Hopkins Univ Press, 2002)

These are just sources I’ve personally checked out from U.S.F.

dcharles << How do scientists decided these are linked? I am assuming by looks. >>

Place to start: Kathleen Hunt’s FAQ

More in Kevin Padian’s complete presentation in Kitzmiller v. Dover

Phil P
 
dcharlesworth said:
Alec

If the object of this thread is to throw as many random words up as possible, I must concede.
Click to expand...
Now then, “random words”? What are you saying? You asked me for examples of transitional fossils leading to birds and pigs and I’ve given you some. Are you suggesting that I made them up? I hope you are not about to plunge your head in the sand.
Where can I verify what you are saying? If it is in fact the truth I am interested, however I have googled now a multitude of these names you have listed to absolutely no avail.
Click to expand...
On the other hand, if you are genuinely interested and you wish to follow up on this stuff, then you will be a rare but welcome example of someone who is prepared to do a bit of work to find out some real science rather than merely reading and regurgitating the sort of junk pseudoscience that web sites such as AIG promote. However, it is going to require a bit of work on your part as it is impossible for me to do other than give you some resources that you will have to follow up on your own (and I see that Phil has already given you some excellent ones). By the way, I am puzzled by your claim that you have “googled now a multitude of these names you have listed to absolutely no avail”, as I have just googled maybe ten of them chosen randomly from the list and I have not failed to find something on the web for any of them. Is your google broken? Watch out for sharp edges.

In any case here are some resources to add to the ones Phil has already given you:
On the dinosaur to bird transition, a recently published popular book by one of the experts in this field, Luis Chiappe, ‘Glorified Dinosaurs’, lavishly illustrated and written for general consumption.
Then the great work on mammalian classification: McKenna and Bell, ‘Classification of Mammals Above the Species Level’
Here is another standard book:
Carroll, ‘Vertebrate Palaeontology and Evolution’
And another:
Nowak, Walker’s Mammals of the World; Parts 1&2.–The Johns Hopkins University Press, Baltimore and London, 1991, xlviii-642-lxiii
Then, there is the palaeobiology database:
paleodb.org
There is the Tree of Life website with a relevant starting page here and oodles of references:
tolweb.org/Artiodactyla/15976
**
To be continued**
 
Montalban said:
His comments appear to be an endorsement of the doctrine of intelligent design.

etc…
Click to expand...
I apologize if this has been beaten to death (I haven’t read every post on this thread), but this is another glaring example of media misunderstanding of theology. The Pope’s statements say nothing whatever about the recent scientific theory (not theological doctrine) called “intelligent design,” which makes specific arguments about the evidence for design from “irreducible complexity” etc.

The idea that the world points to a creator (in various ways) is much broader than this recent movement and would survive intact if ID were proven to be a load of crock, scientifically speaking.

Edwin
 
Continuation

Now some references to general papers, these are a bit harder to get hold of (and understand) for a lay person, but they support what I am saying – as long as you understand that there is hugely more evidence out there than you thought, then my job is done:

Archibald, J. D., 1996: Fossil evidence for a Late Cretaceous origin of “hoofed” mammals.–Science: Vol. 272, 24 May, pp. 1150-1153

Cifelli, R. L. & Schaff, C. R., 1998: Arctostylopida. 332-336.
in Janis, C. M., Scott, K. M. & Jacobs, L. L., 1998: Evolution of Tertiary mammals of North America.–Cambridge University Press, New York. 1998

Gheerbrant, E., Sudre, J., Iarochene, M. & Moumni, A., 2001: First ascertained african “condylarth” mammals (primitive ungulates: cf. Bulbulodentata and cf. Phenacodonta) from the earliest Ypresian of the Ouled Abdoun Basin, Morocco.
–Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: Vol. 21, #1, pp. 107-118

Luo, Z.-X., 1991: Variability of dental morphology and the relationships of the earliest arctocyonid species.–Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: Vol. 11, #4, pp. 452-471

Maas, M. C., Thewissen, J. G. M., Sen, S., Kazanci, N. & Kappelman, J., 2001: Enigmatic new ungulates from the early Middle Eocene of central Anatolia, Turkey.
–Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology: Vol. 21, #3, pp. 578-590

Janis, C. M., Archibald, J. D., Cifelli, R. L., Lucas, S. L., Schaff, C. R., Schoch, R. M. & Williamson, T. E., 1998: Archaic ungulates and ungulate like mammals. 247-259
in Janis, C. M., Scott, K. M. & Jacobs, L. L., 1998: Evolution of Tertiary mammals of North America.–Cambridge University Press, New York. 1998

Cooke, H. B. S. & Wilkinson, A. F., 1978: Suidae and Tayassuidae. 435-482.
in Maglio, V. J. & Cooke, H. B. S., (eds.) 1978: Evolution of African mammals.
–Harvard University Press

Liu, L., 2003: Chinese fossil Suoidea - Systematics, Evolution, and Paleoecology. 1-40–University of Helsinki, Department of Geology, Division of Geology and Paleontology, Doctorate Thesis.
ethesis.helsinki.fi]

Pickford, M. & Morales, J., 2003: New Listriodontinae (Mammalia, Suidae) from Europe and a review of listriodont evolution, biostratigraphy and biogeography.
–Geodiversitas: Vol. 25, #2, pp. 347-404

Geraads, D., Kaya, T. & Mayda, S., 2005: Late Miocene large mammals from Yulafli, Thrace region, Turkey, and their biogeographic implications.
–Acta Palaeontologica Polonica: Vol. 50, #3, pp. 523-544

Pickford, M. & Liu, L., 2001: Revision of the Miocene Suidae of Xiaolongtan (Kaiyuan), China.
–Bollettino della Società Paleontologica Italiana: Vol. 40, #2, pp. 275-283

TD White and JM Harris Suid evolution and correlation of African hominid localities Science 7 October 1977 198: 13-21

Oh, and in case you are wondering - I have read some but not all of these papers.
Code: 
Finally, I can point you to more specific reference material for almost any single one of the bird or pig transitional species that you might be interested in.
How do scientists decided these are linked? I am assuming by looks. (I stand to be corrected) How similar is similar enough to draw a reasonable conclusion that the two are linked? If this is the case, are there any photos associated with all of these things?
Click to expand...
They are linked through detailed and painstaking morphological analysis of fossil material, particularly through skeletal, cranial and dental morphology, and through their environment – in other words they do look similar (but not just at a superficial level, but also at a detailed diagnostic level). Certain features are diagnostic of certain groups and as we go back in the fossil record we see fossils with mixtures of diagnostic features and lineages which coalesce. For example paraxonic limbs are diagnostic of artiodactyls. The hard palate in mammals is formed by the horizontal proceses of the two palatine bones and the palatine portions of the maxillae and this is a mammalian diagnostic.We can trace the cranial structures that form the hard palate in mammals back to the analogous structures in fish (bony armour and cartilaginous brain envelope) both through developmental biology and through the fossil record.

Alec
http://www.evolutionpages.com
 
jpjd said:
What’s to comment on? The Catholic Church has never said we must believe in creationism.
Click to expand...
Sorry but Pope Leo XIII did order that only creation be taught in Catholic schools (been over this before) I love Pope Benedict XVI but I do Not see any evidence for macro evolution, about as much as I see for “man induced” global warming!
God Bless
 
Contarini said:
I apologize if this has been beaten to death (I haven’t read every post on this thread), but this is another glaring example of media misunderstanding of theology. The Pope’s statements say nothing whatever about the recent scientific theory (not theological doctrine) called “intelligent design,” which makes specific arguments about the evidence for design from “irreducible complexity” etc.

The idea that the world points to a creator (in various ways) is much broader than this recent movement and would survive intact if ID were proven to be a load of crock, scientifically speaking.

Edwin
Click to expand...
Intelligent Design is NOT a scientific theory and it has already been proven to be a load of crock.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
hecd2 said:
Now some references to general papers, these are a bit harder to get hold of (and understand) for a lay person, but they support what I am saying – as long as you understand that there is hugely more evidence out there than you thought, then my job is done:
Click to expand...
A good explanation of the amount of scientific evidence available, and its impact on the Evolution/Creationism debate is at The Mirage. This piece is a commentary on a debate between a creationist (NM) and a scientist (Lilith).

rossum
 
I have read a bunch of the sites that have been proposed, however the volume of reading that you have brough tto my attention is beyond my ability to read in a timely manner. One part I came upon was in regards to Stratigraphic Gaps

"Species-to-species transitions are even harder to document. To demonstrate anything about how a species arose, whether it arose gradually or suddenly, you need exceptionally complete strata, with many dead animals buried under constant, rapid sedimentation. This is rare for terrestrial animals. Even the famous Clark’s Fork (Wyoming) site, known for its fine Eocene mammal transitions, only has about one fossil per lineage about every 27,000 years. Luckily, this is enough to record most episodes of evolutionary change (provided that they occurred at Clark’s Fork Basin and not somewhere else), though it misses the most rapid evolutionary bursts. In general, in order to document transitions between species, you specimens separated by only tens of thousands of years (e.g. every 20,000-80,000 years). If you have only one specimen for hundreds of thousands of years (e.g. every 500,000 years), you can usually determine the order of species, but not the transitions between species. If you have a specimen every million years, you can get the order of genera, but not which species were involved. And so on. These are rough estimates (from Gingerich, 1976, 1980) but should give an idea of the completeness required.

Note that fossils separated by more than about a hundred thousand years cannot show anything about how a species arose. Think about it: there could have been a smooth transition, or the species could have appeared suddenly, but either way, if there aren’t enough fossils, we can’t tell which way it happened."

I am sensing that for many reasons the theory of evolution in fact takes a lot of faith to believe.

Do you find this to be true?
 
Another challenege I seem to be coming up in my own mind with, is a creature like a whale.

As I understand the evolution of evolution it goes something like

tiny thing>small things> little fish> big fish> reptiles> birds> and mammals come in there somewhere near the end. However, what on earth would cause an animal after so much work becoming a land creature, with lungs, and live young go back to living underwater?

I realize this is overly simple, but it does seem challenging to explain.
 
rossum said:
A good explanation of the amount of scientific evidence available, and its impact on the Evolution/Creationism debate is at The Mirage. This piece is a commentary on a debate between a creationist (NM) and a scientist (Lilith).

rossum
Click to expand...
Thanks for this reference to an excellent post: I have come across this many times. Creationists complain that we give them too much information and that that is somehow unfair. This post exposes that fallacy very clearly. The fact is that all the evidence and all the data is on the side of science, because it is only scientists that actually do any scientific work to gather evidence.

We are seeing this fallacy at the moment on this thread: dcharlesworth, having claimed there was no evidence of transitional fossils and having challenged us to produce some says this when presented with reference material from Phil and myself:

“the volume of reading that you have brough tto my attention is beyond my ability to read in a timely manner”

Hmm

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pederpes%20finneyae.htm
 
hecd2 said:
“the volume of reading that you have brough tto my attention is beyond my ability to read in a timely manner”

Hmm

Alec
evolutionpages.com/pederpes%20finneyae.htm
Click to expand...
What more would you have me do? I am reading it. I am sorry I do not read at the speed of light. Perhaps if I was to say in a timely manner to reply to your post within five minutes.

Above, my google was indeed not broken, I copy pasted a bunch that were not to be found on the interweb.

Earlier I quoted your page as “they” sorry about that chap. However, I would like some clarity on your stance here. Are you proposing theistic evolution, or atheistic evolution?
 
How can you tell me that these fossils that you have proposed are not infact individual species of their own?

Still puzzeled by the idea of a whale having lungs.
 
dcharlesworth said:
I have read a bunch of the sites that have been proposed, however the volume of reading that you have brough tto my attention is beyond my ability to read in a timely manner. One part I came upon was in regards to Stratigraphic Gaps
Click to expand...
I am terribly disappointed. I thought for once we had encountered an intelligent creationist who was willing to consider the evidence (“If it is in fact the truth I am interested”), but it was not to be. Here is another one who ignores all the careful and incredibly detailed and overwhelming scientific evidence, who in effect blows it away by not engaging properly, who asks questions and fails to respond to the replies (which are clearly better thought through than he thought possible).

dcharlesworth, there is no need to respond in a ‘timely manner’. No-one expects you to absorb all this material in 24 hours. It takes professional scientists years to understand it all. I do, however, expect you give it proper and serious consideration, and not to come back after 24 hours, bleating that we have given you too much to read, ignoring all our considered answers to your questions, and introducing a red herring in the form of stratigraphic gaps. One thing at a time please.

Do you agree now that there are thousands of transitional species in the fossil record?
I am sensing that for many reasons the theory of evolution in fact takes a lot of faith to believe.
Click to expand...
Do you find this to be true?
Click to expand...
You are sensing wrong and in fact you are making yourself into a bit of a buffoon reference creationist (one who ignores all evidence to the contrary and who sticks to his biblically predetermined ideas in the teeth of evidence to the contrary - you were clearly fibbing when you said you would be interested in real evidence for transitional species). It requires no faith at all, because the evidence for evolution is overwhelming from many many branches of science. I do not “believe” the theory of evolution - rather I accept that the theory of evolution is correct because there is simply no other way to interpret the vast quantity of scientific data - fossils, molecular data, biogeography, cladistics etc, which point inexorably to evolution and common descent.

Alec
evolutionpages.com
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top