The evolution hoax

[Tom_of_Assisi]

PhilVaz:

Kevin Walker << and in my opinion the author [Darwin, Origin of Species] really placed his hoof squarely in his mouth when he made the absolute statement regarding the non-existance of God. >>

You mean like here:

“To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes…” (Origin of Species, last chapter)

“There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” (Origin of Species, last sentence, sixth edition)

Phil P

don’t make more of a monkey out of yourself than you already have…Darwin was not a Christian. You need to do a little more than mention the word “creator” once or twice to be a Christian. If you go to a university library and read up on Christian practices you will find I’m correct.

 

[TobyLue]

Just for the sake of argument, let’s say that the rocket sent to crash on a meteor and sends data back about the origins of the Universe, and we find some missing link somewhere. What will that prove? And how will knowing how the earth begin, benefit me. Will it that prove that there is no God? Should we not be concerned about today? We can’t change the past, we don’t know what tomorrow brings.
Just thought I’d ask.

 

[amarischuk]

Tom of Assisi:

don’t make more of a monkey out of yourself than you already have…Darwin was not a Christian. You need to do a little more than mention the word “creator” once or twice to be a Christian. If you go to a university library and read up on Christian practices you will find I’m correct.

From this post I would argue that possibly Darwin wasn’t a Christian (which is besides the point of Darwin believing in God or not) but it most certain that you are not.

And Tom’s dichotomy is almost laughable…almost. Your version of Christianity and particularly Catholicism is disgusting. It is little wonder universities breed atheists with your reactionary, anti-intellectual comments. If I didn’t know better and yours was the only Catholicism I encountered I would not be Catholic.

 

[Michael_s_Sword]

brotherhrolf:

It"s absolutely amazing that forensic anthropologists can solve crimes based upon a single tooth and have it hold up in court and yet the paleoanthropological evidence is held in disdain. Can anyone explain to me why foresnsic anthropology is OK but paleoanthropology is not?

Your argument lacks logic. If a suspect says that he never met an individual but that persons tooth shows up in his house then he is probably lying.

On the other hand if a tooth is found by a paleontologist and he says he can determine the height, weight, age and social habits of that individual he is probably also lying.

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Reformed Rob:

Things like that give us Christians plenty of ammo to show the lengths that pro-evolution folks will go to to foster their pre-suppostitions.

Remember, if we are to be taken seriously, we can’t stoop down to their level in our academics!

We arent’ told in our schools and universities that evolution is only a theory, that science is having grave problems with providing evidence for it. At least, that’s what I understand from my learning about the topic. They just keep on trucking like it’s taken for granted. Like, what else are they going to teach, the Creationist view? Hopefully they won’t teach Open Theism. they probably will eventually.

All that those stories show, is that palaeobiology has its share of foot-in-mouth episodes and frauds.​

But so do Church matters have theirs - the Donation of Constantine was a fraud; non-existent saints have been venerated; there have errors in lists of Popes (“Donus II” and “Pope Joan”, anyone ?), the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals were interpolated, and so on. So it’s not very sensible of Catholics to draw attention to Piltdown Man unless they are prepared to be criticised themselves.

Scientists have no business teaching theism of any kind. If they want to teach religion, let them cease to be scientists. They are no more entitled to use science to promote religion, than an Egyptologist would be entitled to promote the worship of Osiris while teaching a course that included reading excerpts from the “Book of the Dead”.

If a branch of study is required to be free of error in order to be worthwhile, all scholarship would be extinguished. The real issue is whether a number of misjudgements or errors or frauds is sufficient to destroy palaeobiology and scientific theories founded on it. If it and evolution are to be rejected - what is to take its place ? The sort of proof one requires of a scientific claim is not the same as that which one requires of a religious claim; for they detail with different sorts of certainty and different sorts of subject-matter - so what is appropriate to one, is not appropriate to the other. And so with any subject. Which is why it is a mistake to approach scientific matters as though they were religious matters - they aren’t; or not in the way that religious matters are religious matters.

BTW - it is evidence of the value of the evolutionary theory that it can survive such aberrations as the Piltdown affair. If it were as weak as it is said to be - why has it not collapsed ? ##

 

[rossum]

RSiscoe:

If you notice, I began my first post with quotation marks.

Yes, I did notice. However I did not see any closing quotation mark or any references to either of the sites you copied from.

Look at these two examples:

A) "In the beginning God created the heavens and the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues.

B) “In the beginning God created the heavens and the” [Gen 1:1] “seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues.” [Rev 20:9]
Which of these do you consider to be correct and which not? Which of these more resembles your opening post? A single quote mark does not even make one quotation, let alone two separate quotations.

Which is true? Gradual evolution or punctuated equilibrium?

A question like this leads me to believe that you have been learning about evolution from creationist sites. Has it ever occurred to you that anti-evolution sites are not the most reliable source for information about evolution? If I wanted to learn about Christianity, do you think that I would get accurate information from a site called “atheists-r-us.org”? Why not have a look at www.talkorigins.org to help you learn about evolution? At least it will give you an idea of what responses you are likely to get so you can have rebuttals prepared in advance. For punctuated equilibrium see the reference PhilVaz gave you in his post#17.

The answer to your question is that both gradual evolution and punctuated equilibrium are true. Evolution is not a constant speed process; sometimes it runs slower and sometimes faster. The speed will depend on a number of factors: the size of the interbreeding population, the evolutionary pressure on that population, the amount of competition in the area where the population lives and other things. Punctuated equilibrium is not “over-night”, it could mean something taking fifty thousand years rather than taking five million years. If you really think that punk-eek means that “a fish give birth to a fully devolped reptile” then you are wrong. Look up Icthyostega or Acanthostega to give just two examples of the transition from fish to amphibian (not reptile - your sources goofed again).

The contradiction you imply between gradual evolution and punctuated equilibrium is a false dichotomy; they are the same process running at different speeds at different times and in different places. Both are correct.

Now I want to propose a question to you. If, as you say in your opening post, evolution is a “hoax” then what is your explanation for the fact that DDT used to kill many insect pests but now those same species of insects are immune to DDT. If you don’t like that particular example then feel free to pick another one such as Warfarin resistant rats or bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

rossum

 

[RSiscoe]

rossum:

Now I want to propose a question to you. If, as you say in your opening post, evolution is a “hoax” then what is your explanation for the fact that DDT used to kill many insect pests but now those same species of insects are immune to DDT. If you don’t like that particular example then feel free to pick another one such as Warfarin resistant rats or bacterial resistance to antibiotics.

rossum

This is my explanation: I beleive there can be changes that take place within a species - such as the skin of humans becoming darker in certain parts of the earth, etc. - but never can one species become another. It makes perfect sense to me that God would create his creatures with the ability to adapt to their surroundings - and thus, to use your example, become resistant to things which at one time were harmful to them - but I reject the idea that one creature can become another.

I guess you could say that I believe in “evolution within species”, but not “evolution from one sepcies to another”.

Also keep in mind that there is abundant evidence that shows “evolution within species”. If “evolution from one species to another” were true, there should be just as much evidence to support it. Why isn’t there?

 

[Tallow]

NEANDERTHAL MAN There have been a number of reports in recent years, reported in the European and Asian press that Neanderthal Man has been found to have DNA which shows no relationship to modern man’s. In other words we are not the descendants of Neanderthals. Here’s an excerpt from an article in the Japan Times:

PARIS (AFP-Jiji) DNA tests on the fossilized rib of a Neanderthal infant who died about 28,000 years ago have confirmed that the mysterious hominids were not ancestors of humans, British researchers said Tuesday. http://www.trussel.com/prehist/empty10.gifThe results back a landmark 1997 study, which DNA-tested the first Neanderthal remains, unearthed in Germany’s Neander Valley in 1856.

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/empty10.gifA team led by William Goodwin of the University of Glasgow said another fossil, found at Mezmaiskaya in the Caucasus Mountains of southern Russia, yielded a sequence that was closely related to the German find, with just 3.48 percent difference.

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/empty10.gifBut even more significant, the researchers said, was that neither sequence showed any close relationship to modern European populations.

http://www.trussel.com/prehist/empty10.gifThis argues against the idea that modern Europeans are partly of Neanderthal descent, they said.

Now, as I understand it, the Church has no particular beef with the theory of evolution, as long as it is acknowledged to be a theory, and as long as the formulation of the theory leaves room for the Church’s assertion that God creates each person’s soul and infuses it into the body at the moment of conception.

Inasmuch as I follow the Church’s teachings, I too have no beef with the theory of evolution.

But I was trained in physics and I think evolution is lousy science.

 

[PhilVaz]

TomA << So are we the product of God’s special supernatural creation, or are we the natural byproduct of monkey lust? >>

We’ll debate on the new poll thread you started. And I’ll get you to read at least one book on evolution, by gosh.

StarNet Australia White Label Digital Products

StarNet is leading the way in Australia for WHITE LABEL Search engine optimization. Helping connect online marketing agencies with Australian based Reseller SEO.

austarnet.com.au

Two books you should get:

Darwinism Defeated? The Johnson-Lamoureux Debate on Biological Origins (Regent College, 1999) by Phillip E. Johnson, Denis Lamoureux, and many contributors

Coming to Peace with Science: Bridging the Worlds Between Faith and Biology (Intervarsity Press, 2004) by Darrel Falk

And the Ratzinger commentary on Genesis, but I don’t have that yet.

Phil P

 

[brotherhrolf]

Ann Cheryl: Sorry I am late in responding. You can find the story of the single tooth in Mary Ann Manheim’s The Bone Lady. She is a forensic anthropologist at LSU who has solved many cases here in Louisiana. She was instrumental in helping solve one of our latest serial killer crimes of Derick Todd Lee.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Gosh folks: Have any one of you heard of theistic evolution - in that all we are perceiving is the cloudy memory of God’s creation?

 

[jimmy]

Ann Cheryl:

Please cite a source where a crime was solved on a single tooth.

It is possible to solve a crime with a tooth. They can do a DNA test with the tooth.

 

[BayCityRickL]

I think it was the National Geographic Channel on cable that presented the data on male Y chromosomes to show how hominids distributed throughout the world.

due to regular mutations of this chromosome, a history emerges of how men dispersed out of Africa.

There are some dilemmas of DNA data, since modern humans move around so much. But, the distinctions and history of men are based on which branch of mutations different male populations inherit and transmit. It’s very logical and coherent and supports what you would expect to find, viz. a genetic underpinning of the theory on the one hand, and regional morphology (shapes of bone, etc.) on the other.

So, too, “evolution” evolves, too. A theory is an explanation which takes – you should hope – lots of data into consideration. As more data arrives, the theory is either supported or not.

From the standpoint of logical positivism, evolution looks real solid.

There certainly are difficulties. How does evolution explain intermediate stages that fail? Why do sea creatures species evolve into birds? Why do fish jumping out of the water get better and better and eventually take to flight? Or, did the birds come from land reptiles? Whichever, same question. You have to put “faith” in a lot of similar mutations that compound on one another. We all want to see the data for such assertions. Unerstandably it would take time.

 

[brotherhrolf]

Ann Cheryl: You might be interested in reading Mary Ann Manheim’s autobiographical “The Bone Lady” published by, I believe, Penguin Press. She is a forensic anthropologist. If I had to do it all over again, I’d move from archaeology to forensic anthro. Utterly fascinating and utterly useful. Bones and teeth can tell you a great bit.

 

[Monicathree]

Hi everyone

I find science and religion interesting. However, I sometimes get lost with some of the science stuff. I am reading a book called, The Case for a Creator. Have any of you heard of it? The author also has other really good books, Lee Strobel. Anyway, he talks about what is being discussed here. He was a staunch atheist, due to the Darwin Theory, and also an investigative journalist who has now become Christian. Just interested in any feed back from all of you kind folks… it has been a bit of a slow read for me, but I just attribute that to my own self, not due to his book.

peace

 

[rossum]

RSiscoe:

I guess you could say that I believe in “evolution within species”, but not “evolution from one species to another”. (typo corrected)

Thank you for your answer. The terms for “evolution within a species” and “evolution from one species to another” are microevolution and macroevlution respectively.

So only parts of evolution are a hoax then, not all of it. I suppose “The evolution partial hoax” does not make quite such a snappy thread title.

there is abundant evidence that shows “evolution within species”.

We agree on this, there is indeed abundant evidence showing microevolution. The three examples I mentioned in my question to you are just a small part of it.

If “evolution from one species to another” were true, there should be just as much evidence to support it. Why isn’t there?

Here is where we disagree, there is evidence for macroevolution. I said that you ought to look at the Talk Origins website, if only to have rebuttals ready. So you should not be surprised when I refer you to a relevant article from that very site: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

One thing I have noticed in scientific discussions is that scientists sometimes have a blind-spot for rhetorical questions. Since the main purpose of science is to answer questions, scientists tend to see all questions as actual questions that require an answer. Your question about the relative quantity of evidence may perhaps have been rhetorical, but I am going to have a stab at an answer anyway.

Looking at the fossil evidence it is obvious that each species consists of more than one individual, so there are more individuals than there are species. Thus among a million fossils we may only have twenty thousand species. Above the species level, genus and so on, the numbers become even smaller. Hence we have a smaller pool of data to work from. If our million fossils represent only twenty thousand species then already there is less evidence. When dealing with macroevolution we are looking at different, but related, species. Yet another fossil of a known species is not a great deal of use; for this work we need fossils of previously unknown species.

Punctuated equilibrium tells us that many new species arise in small populations in a small geographical area in a relatively short time, a few tens of thousands of years. Unless we have the fossils from the right place at the right time horizon then we are not going to be in luck. Sometimes we do get lucky - a number of the ancestors of the whales have been found, all within a limited time horizon and all in Pakistan. However all too often we have not been lucky and we cannot see the origin of a particular species in the fossil record. Most animals arrive where they live by migration so they will appear suddenly in the fossil record, such as the arrival of humans in America. There is no chance of finding any evidence of human ancestry in America because humans migrated there rather than originated there. Only fossils from the right place and the right time are going to give us the information we need. This narrows down the available evidence considerably.

Turning from the fossils to the DNA evidence, this is lacking mainly due to time and money. The discovery of DNA is much more recent than the discovery of fossils, and we are still developing the required techniques. Only a few species have had their genome fully sequenced and it takes time and money to sequence even a relatively simple organism. Over time there will be a great deal more evidence coming from DNA. Even with what we already have there is good evidence for macroevolution, see the reference I gave above.

rossum

 

[RSiscoe]

rossum:

Thank you for your answer. The terms for “evolution within a species” and “evolution from one species to another” are microevolution and macroevlution respectively.

So only parts of evolution are a hoax then, not all of it. I suppose “The evolution partial hoax” does not make quite such a snappy thread title.

We agree on this, there is indeed abundant evidence showing microevolution. The three examples I mentioned in my question to you are just a small part of it.

Here is where we disagree, there is evidence for macroevolution. I said that you ought to look at the Talk Origins website, if only to have rebuttals ready. So you should not be surprised when I refer you to a relevant article from that very site: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution.

One thing I have noticed in scientific discussions is that scientists sometimes have a blind-spot for rhetorical questions. Since the main purpose of science is to answer questions, scientists tend to see all questions as actual questions that require an answer. Your question about the relative quantity of evidence may perhaps have been rhetorical, but I am going to have a stab at an answer anyway.

Looking at the fossil evidence it is obvious that each species consists of more than one individual, so there are more individuals than there are species. Thus among a million fossils we may only have twenty thousand species. Above the species level, genus and so on, the numbers become even smaller. Hence we have a smaller pool of data to work from. If our million fossils represent only twenty thousand species then already there is less evidence. When dealing with macroevolution we are looking at different, but related, species. Yet another fossil of a known species is not a great deal of use; for this work we need fossils of previously unknown species.

Punctuated equilibrium tells us that many new species arise in small populations in a small geographical area in a relatively short time, a few tens of thousands of years. Unless we have the fossils from the right place at the right time horizon then we are not going to be in luck. Sometimes we do get lucky - a number of the ancestors of the whales have been found, all within a limited time horizon and all in Pakistan. However all too often we have not been lucky and we cannot see the origin of a particular species in the fossil record. Most animals arrive where they live by migration so they will appear suddenly in the fossil record, such as the arrival of humans in America. There is no chance of finding any evidence of human ancestry in America because humans migrated there rather than originated there. Only fossils from the right place and the right time are going to give us the information we need. This narrows down the available evidence considerably.

Turning from the fossils to the DNA evidence, this is lacking mainly due to time and money. The discovery of DNA is much more recent than the discovery of fossils, and we are still developing the required techniques. Only a few species have had their genome fully sequenced and it takes time and money to sequence even a relatively simple organism. Over time there will be a great deal more evidence coming from DNA. Even with what we already have there is good evidence for macroevolution, see the reference I gave above.

rossum

I have two questions:

In your opinion, what are the three strongest pieces of evidence (three strongest arguments) for macroevolution; and what are the three biggest difficulties for macroevolution?

 

[dcdurel]

The following are a few of the fraudulent “missing links” that the evolutionists have given us.

"Nebraska Man: etc,
Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice shame on me. Don’t be fooled by the evolution hoax.

I agree. The ape-men are only part of the hoaxes. The fake fossil horses, the spotted moths, etc. Everything, I mean everything I was taught during my life as examples of evolution have turned out to be false. There is not a single example of a missing fossil that was accepted 10 years ago, that is accepted today by all evolutionists.

Evolution by chance is total stupidity.

That is why today, over 40% of scientists have come to believe the only evolution possible is a God-directed evolution.

 

[jeffreedy789]

the thing that all of these accounts (which are not even refuted by those of you who endorse evolution) point to is that there is a spin, using blatant dishonesty, in the scientific community, which tries to paint a world where evolution brought us into existence, without God.

one bit that hasn’t been brought up by anyone pro or con is that evidence pointing to a young earth (such as human footprints inside of dinosaur prints) is ignored entirely by scientists whose theories are not supported by such evidence.

this is one of ‘those’ issues, though. i doubt very seriously if any of us are going to convince anyone from the other camp that what we’re saying is true. evolutionists are pretty convinced they’re right. young earthers are, too. and so is everyone in between.

i guess the only people who might read these things and be swayed are those who don’t yet have an opinion on the subject. for the sake of these ‘little ones’, i admonish everyone - be very careful. scripture is clear about the gravity of leading ‘one of these little ones’ astray.

 

[TheGarg]

PhilVaz:

Kevin Walker << and in my opinion the author [Darwin, Origin of Species] really placed his hoof squarely in his mouth when he made the absolute statement regarding the non-existance of God. >>

You mean like here:

“To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes…” (Origin of Species, last chapter)

“There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone circling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.” (Origin of Species, last sentence, sixth edition)

Phil P

thanx phil,

Misguided atheist have misused darwin as ammo in ther arugments for so long, i had no idea that darwin wasn’t an atheist himself, and did indeed acknowledge a Creator. Ya learn somehting new everday!
Peace of the Lord be with you!