Scientists Unveil Missing Link In Evolution

[RobbyS]

But humans did not evolve from ducks. We had a common ancestor that split so long ago that we are not really in any way related to ducks - so that is impossible. Speciation just doesn’t occur like that - one species doesn’t just one day have a child with a totally bizarre characteristic. It happens verrrrry slowly and with many groups splitting and evolving in very different ways independent of each other.

That’s because humans and apes are not the same. We share intellectual faculties as well - apes are one of very few animals that can comprehend sign language and have elaborate social structures. There is obviously a huge difference in our intelligence, but that’s because we evolved differently. Our common ancestors split into several groups isolated in different areas. Depending on the circumstances, some slowly evolved into apes, and some slowly evolved into humans. Our common ancestor that became the human race slowly got smarter and smarter, whereas apes did not do that as much. This may be because humans lived in an area where greater intelligence is needed to survive and develop - maybe we were competing with another monkey like creature for food, and as we developed, they died out.

There is a theory that the reason why western society evolved so much more quickly in terms of industrialization and science etc. is because of the cold weather in the western world. It causes people to have to think up more ways to survive and plan more long-term. You have to settle down and build warm shelters, etc. Something similar might have happened in whatever caused one branch to develop so quickly into humans.

The many branches of our common ancestor lead to other things besides apes and humans as well. Take neanderthals, they were something that evolved more than apes but not as much as humans. Apes were suited to the conditions they lived in and therefore did not evolve very rapidly. It is thought humans led neanderthals to die out. In competition with neanderthals, humans became smarter and neanderthals did not evolve as quickly and died out. Humans were more likely to survive the smarter they were, an therefore their intellect continued to develop.

Wherever apes lived, they were well suited for survival. The branch that became humans, for whatever reason, needed to become smarter to survive, due to competition, climate, or some other reason. Nowadays, apes survive well in deep forests and areas where humans do not. If there were a species in the middle, like neanderthals, they would die out trying to compete with humans, as they are not well suited to the life of apes, who they are superior to. Apes simply didn’t need to evolve as far from our common ancestor as we did to survive.

I don’t disagree with you, but let us not minimize the vast differences between apes and men. Primates are vastly smarter than, say. a dog, but their mental abilities are so unlike those of humans that it is quite understandable that attempts to cross-breed men and apes did not and cannot succeed. And at the genetic level, the mismatch is total, because the information content is so different.

 

[Aramis]

Neanderthals, now could the creationists please explain THAT? Here we have what is obviously not a human, but it looked identical, created tools, artwork, buried the dead and followed a form of primitive religion.

I wonder of the Neanderthals were the dwellers in the Land of Nod…

 

[MichaelTDoyle]

How can the theory of evolution or the debate on that theory help us to love God and love our fellow man and lastly love ourselves?

I’m not saying this as rhetoric or to make a particular point. I’m genuinely throwing the question out there, because there is a lot of Catholic intellectual energy regularly thrown on these forums and elsewhere on this issue, so much so that Popes have spoken on the issue. Is there a useful, more than just poetic, connection to the intrinsic dignity of man? Can this make our atheists–they are “ours” as this is our generation and we are the Church Militant–reconsider the essential question. At this stage of the debate, it seems to give atheists some metaphysical comfort. If an atheist talks about his atheism, words like “science” “rationality” and “evolution” quickly get thrown into the mix as if it is a tenet of the materialism that most atheists hold. I remember that God can make faults happy. If the issue turns the most lost toward the Divine subject of our essential question–How do I best Love God? How can we advance the Good News? Can we move them from Is there God? to an affirmative and the natural consequence of the Good News: love of Him?

 

[a_priori]

We all await for the very conclusive evidence of it being a fact….sooo……evolutionists…hasten up, do your job!!!

Speaking for myself, nothing has to be proven here. My job is to love God and my neighbor as myself. I can also appreciate the complexity and wonder of His creation by believing that the evidence at this point suggests an old Earth and evolution as the means to get us to where we are. This has nothing to do with proving anything.

God doesn’t think less of a person simply because they are intrigued by the hominids which, incidentally, He created.

 

[redneck22]

It also has scientists talking about the possibility that, in certain conditions (buried under enormous amounts of sandstone, etc.) soft tissue may, indeed, survive, and that it could be more common than thought, though still rare.

However, there is still some controversy surrounding the t. rex soft tissue discovery, as it may not be as originally thought:

sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080729234140.htm

The scientists said it had to be “biofilm” built up over “millions of years”, however experimental testing has now shown that the material is what creationists “originally thought” it would be for a creature buried for a few thousands of years.

“Next, Schweitzer sent the samples to Asara’s lab to be analyzed by a new mass spectrometer, capable of producing sequences with much greater resolution than the one used previously. Mass spectrometry identifies molecules by measuring the mass of the protein fragments, or peptides, that result from breaking apart molecules with specific enzymes. The masses are measured with very high mass accuracy, and then compared with existing databases of proteins to achieve a best fit. In this way, Asara was able to identify eight collagen peptides from the hadrosaur, then confirm the identity of the sequences by comparing them both to synthesized fragments and to modern proteins analyzed under the same conditions.” here.

Then the logic goes…

1). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.

2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.

3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:

4). There must be a mistaken assumption in the calculations mentioned in Point 2)—though we don’t know for sure how, collagen must be able to survive for 80 million years. How do we know that? Because

5). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.

Notice how points 1) and 5) are identical, revealing the circularity. The following chain of reasoning is far more science-based:

1). This dinosaur fossil is claimed to be 80 million years old.

2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.

3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:

4). The claim in point 1) is wrong. The fossil cannot be anywhere near that old. This matches the expectations of a worldview based on the history given to us in the book of Genesis.

Reference here

 

[Adonis33]

There’s only one appropriate response to that, greg, and it consists of two words: a non-transitive verb and a primary pronoun.

And now, I really am done. Bye, now.

Just for the record, I’m not a Vatican II denier----but I do believe that Vatican II must be interpreted in light of all other Catholic teaching that came before 1965. In short, I accept Vatican II; what I deny is “the Spirit of Vatican II”, or all of the liberal, dissident balderdash that has been foisted off on the faithful, consisting of their own screwy ideas that they call Vatican II.

I was not implying you were a “Vatican II Denier”, I just saw the phrase “VII denier” and thought what a silly thing to call somebody.

 

[space_trojan]

Speaking for myself, nothing has to be proven here. My job is to love God and my neighbor as myself. I can also appreciate the complexity and wonder of His creation by believing that the evidence at this point suggests an old Earth and evolution as the means to get us to where we are. This has nothing to do with proving anything.

God doesn’t think less of a person simply because they are intrigued by the hominids which, incidentally, He created.

The evolutionary age of the earth was based on Lyellian uniformitarianism with the agenda of displacing the biblical chronology with a secular one. Aside from the evidences that the cosmos does not have a long age (please grab a book of your choice about this subject) it is also true that discrediting an old age for the earth discredits old ages for the universe as well…since the earth is not truly old, the billions of years chronology for the sun, the solar system and the universe has no foundation. Substantial radioactive decay has occurred in rocks, however, this decay did not take place slowly over geologic age, instead, one or more episodes of accelerated decay with shortened half lives took place accounting for the radioisotopes allegedly requiring billions of years to form….

Indeed we are all God’s creations, and humans are very special in that He created us in His own image, would God be impressed that He is now being equated to a primate?

 

[greg_b]

Anyone else notice that Christians outside of the USA don’t argue over evolution. Know why? Because it seems they are smarter than the ones here and accept evolution is how God made us and life here on this planet. The most sad thing is watching Catholics being suckered by these myths of the American religious right. I always thought Catholics in this country were more sane than the jingoistic neo-puritan theocrats, but it seems I might be wrong.

Another good video I found

Top 25 Creationist Fallacies

youtube.com/watch?v=EXMKPvWqgYk

P.S. Father Groeschel I believe did a good show on evolution and how it conforms to Catholic views, I hope maybe someone here knows a link for that

 

[siamesecat]

I don’t disagree with you, but let us not minimize the vast differences between apes and men. Primates are vastly smarter than, say. a dog, but their mental abilities are so unlike those of humans that it is quite understandable that attempts to cross-breed men and apes did not and cannot succeed. And at the genetic level, the mismatch is total, because the information content is so different.

They are vastly different. That doesn’t mean they didn’t evolve from a common ancestor. Evolution does not mean a chimp one day gave birth to a baby human - obviously, that’s an impossible leap. One branch of our common ancestor became more and more chimp like, one branch became more and more human like. The human branch very slowly lost its fur (but not all), became more intelligent, became increasingly tall and erect, etc. Over millions of years. They are no longer genetically similar enough to cross-breed, and there are certainly vast differences, but that doesn’t disprove evolution by any means. We actually have very similar genetic information to chimps, but even the very gradual and small difference made over millions of years have huge effects.

 

[siamesecat]

As tempting as it is, I think using a less patronizing tone is the way to go, greg_b. One reason some people don’t believe in evolution is because they simply do not understand exactly how it works. I don’t understand it in huge detail, because I’m not a scientist, but many of people’s questions can be answered through honest education and an attempt to communicate. However, your point about who the neanderthals were is a great one - how is that explained by creationists or non-evolutionists? I’m curious.

 

[Coleski]

What do you mean by that is how God made us? Pure evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins do not believe in God period. To Dawkins there is no God. There is just the material universe and that’s all. What Dawkins believes is that our existence is a complete accident. This is the old Epicurus theory that everything including life was created by chance interactions of matter in motion. Somehow molecules and atoms bouncing around in the ancient oceans assembled into one celled living creatures. Yes spontaneous generation if you will. A complete living creature with a replicating blue print with an incredibly complex rational code that directs an immensely complex chemical synthesis that by pure chance alone popped into being. What happened next is that this genetic code mutated and some of the mutations gave competitive advantage to some of the living cells who then out-competed other cells and from there species emerged to evolve to the present day. No God, no design, no intelligence is needed. Some deceitful thinkers call this blind process evolutionary process God. Hegel took this idea to claim that all human history is merely an evolutionary process of competition and a higher synthesis that leads to an ever advancing process he calls Spirit. Some Christian thinkers like Paul Tillich call God the Ground of Being. What he means by this is that God is a blind evolutionary process. Such thinking is used to deny the truths found in the Bible. After all they were primitive Hebrew mystics who were not as evolved as we are. The same thinking is used to deny all timeless truths and morality as nothing but illusion as everything is evolving. Now Christians believe that God does intervene with His creation. God allows freedom including freewill to humanity and thus some of us will fail and some succeed to go to Heaven or Hell if you will. Which is somewhat similar to the survival of the fittest, except it is the survival of the good and holy. Moral Darwinism is the survival of the strong over the week. Since there is no God, there is nothing holy and thus whatever is expedient is moral. I believe God put his moral sense within us. He designed us that way, but by our rebellion we were cast out to the Darwinist law of the jungle. The way back is not to go deeper into the jungle but to return to the Holy through Christ our savior. What do you believe?

 

[Wolseley]

Then the logic goes…

1). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.

2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.

3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:

4). There must be a mistaken assumption in the calculations mentioned in Point 2)—though we don’t know for sure how, collagen must be able to survive for 80 million years. How do we know that? Because

5). We know that this dinosaur fossil is 80 million years old.

Notice how points 1) and 5) are identical, revealing the circularity. The following chain of reasoning is far more science-based:

1). This dinosaur fossil is claimed to be 80 million years old.

2). Calculations based on operational (observational) science indicate that no collagen should survive anywhere near that long.

3). Collagen has been identified in these dinosaur fossils. Therefore:

4). The claim in point 1) is wrong. The fossil cannot be anywhere near that old. This matches the expectations of a worldview based on the history given to us in the book of Genesis.

Precisely. Either the collagen actually can be preserved for that long, or else the dinosaur is a lot more recent than our erudite friends in the scientific community would lead us to believe. I personally believe the latter; there are literally hundreds of examples of large dinosaurian creatures which are depicted by ancient humans in ancient art and ancient literature the world over—many of them in which they are interacting with humans. (Dragons, anyone?)

Of course, the paleontologist will smugly reply, “Impossible, because we know that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago.” If you point out that there is evidence to the contrary, it will be dismissed, because “We know…”

In short, they have their theory, and if evidence arises which contradicts it, that evidence must be dismissed as anamalous or hoax, because it contradicts their theory. A classic example of making the evidence fit the theory, instead of allowing the evidence to determine the theory.

That ain’t science, kids. At least not the way I was told science is supposed to work.

I was not implying you were a “Vatican II Denier”, I just saw the phrase “VII denier” and thought what a silly thing to call somebody.

I understand. I was merely making a general explanation for the benefit of all who might be curious.

 

[Coleski]

What do you mean by that is how God made us? Pure evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins do not believe in God period. To Dawkins there is no God. There is just the material universe and that’s all. What Dawkins believes is that our existence is a complete accident. This is the old Epicurus theory that everything including life was created by chance interactions of matter in motion. Somehow molecules and atoms bouncing around in the ancient oceans assembled into one celled living creatures. Yes spontaneous generation if you will. A complete living creature with a replicating blue print with an incredibly complex rational code that directs an immensely complex chemical synthesis that by pure chance alone popped into being. What happened next is that this genetic code mutated and some of the mutations gave competitive advantage to some of the living cells who then out-competed other cells and from there species emerged to evolve to the present day. No God, no design, no intelligence is needed. Some deceitful thinkers call this blind process evolutionary process God. Hegel took this idea to claim that all human history is merely an evolutionary process of competition and a higher synthesis that leads to an ever advancing process he calls Spirit. Some Christian thinkers like Paul Tillich call God the Ground of Being. What he means by this is that God is a blind evolutionary process. Such thinking is used to deny the truths found in the Bible. After all they were primitive Hebrew mystics who were not as evolved as we are. The same thinking is used to deny all timeless truths and morality as nothing but illusion as everything is evolving. Now Christians believe that God does intervene with His creation. God allows freedom including freewill to humanity and thus some of us will fail and some succeed to go to Heaven or Hell if you will. Which is somewhat similar to the survival of the fittest, except it is the survival of the good and holy. Moral Darwinism is the survival of the strong over the week. Since there is no God, there is nothing holy and thus whatever is expedient is moral. I believe God put his moral sense within us. He designed us that way, but by our rebellion we were cast out to the Darwinist law of the jungle. The way back is not to go deeper into the jungle but to return to the Holy through Christ our savior. What do you believe?

 

[ready]

As tempting as it is, I think using a less patronizing tone is the way to go, greg_b. One reason some people don’t believe in evolution is because they simply do not understand exactly how it works. I don’t understand it in huge detail, because I’m not a scientist, but many of people’s questions can be answered through honest education and an attempt to communicate. However, your point about who the neanderthals were is a great one - how is that explained by creationists or non-evolutionists? I’m curious.

I am a creationist (a non-evolutionist) and I just believe that God created the neandethals out of dust just like he did Adam later in history - except with Adam, man was able to be truly civilized and endowed with supernatural gifts and pretenatural gifts that made him a little less than the angels - a true son of God and not an animal. My big question to you is, what do the evolutionists have to say about the angels, who we know exist?

 

[ready]

Another question to the evolutionist. Is it taught in evolution that something ape-ish bred with something human-ish and that common ancestor gave us modern man?

 

[buffalo]

They are vastly different. That doesn’t mean they didn’t evolve from a common ancestor. Evolution does not mean a chimp one day gave birth to a baby human - obviously, that’s an impossible leap. One branch of our common ancestor became more and more chimp like, one branch became more and more human like. The human branch very slowly lost its fur (but not all), became more intelligent, became increasingly tall and erect, etc. Over millions of years. They are no longer genetically similar enough to cross-breed, and there are certainly vast differences, but that doesn’t disprove evolution by any means. We actually have very similar genetic information to chimps, but even the very gradual and small difference made over millions of years have huge effects.

It’s time once again to play The Richard Dawkins Mutation Challenge

 

[buffalo]

Neanderthals, now could the creationists please explain THAT? Here we have what is obviously not a human, but it looked identical, created tools, artwork, buried the dead and followed a form of primitive religion.

The Neanderthals are now thought to be a human subspecies.

 

[ready]

The Neanderthals are now thought to be a human subspecies.

Then maybe they are a human sub-species, but they are extant. The humans *today *descended from Adam and Eve when the earth was made more perfect for living - a paradise was even given them in which to abide. When God created Adam, he created perfect man. When God created the neanderthal he created only a subspecies of man that was not quite so perfect or able to share in his divinity so fully.

 

[ready]

Then maybe they are a human sub-species, but they are extant. The humans *today *descended from Adam and Eve when the earth was made more perfect for living - a paradise was even given them in which to abide. When God created Adam, he created perfect man. When God created the neanderthal he created only a subspecies of man that was not quite so perfect or able to share in his divinity so fully.

I think it is possible that with gene mutation occuring Adam may have been descended from a sub-species of humans and was given the Holy Spirit to make him share in God’s divinity fully, unlike his sub-human predecessors (like the neanderthals). Then God found Adam another human to mate with and to create the modern human race we know as modern society. I guess, I’m open to evolution that doesn’t contradict the Bible’s story of creationism.

 

[siamesecat]

What do you mean by that is how God made us? Pure evolutionists such as Richard Dawkins do not believe in God period. To Dawkins there is no God. There is just the material universe and that’s all. What Dawkins believes is that our existence is a complete accident. This is the old Epicurus theory that everything including life was created by chance interactions of matter in motion. Somehow molecules and atoms bouncing around in the ancient oceans assembled into one celled living creatures. Yes spontaneous generation if you will. A complete living creature with a replicating blue print with an incredibly complex rational code that directs an immensely complex chemical synthesis that by pure chance alone popped into being. What happened next is that this genetic code mutated and some of the mutations gave competitive advantage to some of the living cells who then out-competed other cells and from there species emerged to evolve to the present day. No God, no design, no intelligence is needed. Some deceitful thinkers call this blind process evolutionary process God. Hegel took this idea to claim that all human history is merely an evolutionary process of competition and a higher synthesis that leads to an ever advancing process he calls Spirit. Some Christian thinkers like Paul Tillich call God the Ground of Being. What he means by this is that God is a blind evolutionary process. Such thinking is used to deny the truths found in the Bible. After all they were primitive Hebrew mystics who were not as evolved as we are. The same thinking is used to deny all timeless truths and morality as nothing but illusion as everything is evolving. Now Christians believe that God does intervene with His creation. God allows freedom including freewill to humanity and thus some of us will fail and some succeed to go to Heaven or Hell if you will. Which is somewhat similar to the survival of the fittest, except it is the survival of the good and holy. Moral Darwinism is the survival of the strong over the week. Since there is no God, there is nothing holy and thus whatever is expedient is moral. I believe God put his moral sense within us. He designed us that way, but by our rebellion we were cast out to the Darwinist law of the jungle. The way back is not to go deeper into the jungle but to return to the Holy through Christ our savior. What do you believe?

Well, you can be Christian and an evolutionist, or be secular and not an evolutionist. You can believe God created the world and had plans, and evolution is how the plans were eventually reached. Evolution and the Big Bang theory, which is totally secular, are two very different things. They are compatible, but not if you take the creation story literally.