You know the syndrome: Someone is caught in a scandal relating to sex, and then they take an offer to pose nude for pornography, and end up merely as a naked embarrassment to everybody.
Same syndrome, but mercifully, without the nudism (yet): Creationists taking it just a bit too far. Two examples.
Example 1: Don McLeroy, newly appointed to the chair of the Texas State Board of Education, was embarrassed by the release of tapes of a talk he gave in a church, demonstrating for anyone who didn’t already know that he’s opposed to teaching science in biology, especially if that science involves evolution. Bad enough?
He’s posted a transcript of the tape on his own website. It almost appears he’s hoping for an appointment as a “fellow” of the Discovery Institute.
McLeroy may have posted the transcript to try to correct a statement the transcripts say he made: “”Remember keep chipping away at the objective empirical evidence.”
At McLeroy’s website, it’s listed like this: “Remember keep chipping away with the objective empirical evidence.” It’s a subtle difference, but it suggests McLeroy is ill-informed enough that he thinks there may be evidence to support creationism, rather than devious enough to urge the denial of reality. Bob, at Hot Dogs, Pretzels and Perplexing Questions, wrote:
I’m not quite sure what to make of all this. Was it a Freudian slip? Did he innocently misspeak? Or could it be that he edited the text after the fact? Either way, I don’t think it makes that much of a difference. They have no objective empirical evidence of their own to chip away with, just the objective empirical evidence they stubbornly attempt to chip away at, and to no avail. I’ll leave the discovery of any other discrepancies as an exercise for the reader, at least for now.
McLeroy shows no desire to appear neutral, as employees of TEA are now required to be toward science — or “neutered” toward science, as one might say.
Example 2: McLeroy’s Islamist partner, Adnan Oktar ( aka “Harun Yahya”), is a continuing embarrassment. This isn’t news, but I stumbled across the actual images he pirated — and they are impressive.
The Atlas of Creation purports to show that no evolution has occurred between a few fossil forms and modern forms of animals — therefore, Oktar concludes in his book, evolution could not have occurred at all. Oktar couldn’t sell the book, so he sent copies of the thing to school libraries across Europe, and then to selected people and school libraries across North America.
The book is beautifully printed and bound, with hundreds of full color plates — it must have cost a fortune to produce.
And so, Oktar had to make economies somewhere. He chose to plagiarize photos and not bother with lawyers to procure rights to print the photos. He also chose to abandon the use of fact checkers, it appears.
And so we get embarrassments, like Oktar comparing this caddis fly, below, to one caught in amber, and concluding there’s been no evolution. The problem, as you can plainly see from the photo I borrow from Forbidden Music, is that the “living” example is actually a fishing lure; Oktar has plagiarized a photograph of one of Graham Owen’s wonderul fishing lures.
Jesus urged his followers to become “fishers of men.” McLeroy and Oktar have confused such imprecations, horribly, with the hoax P. T. Barnum line, that there’s a sucker born every minute.
Owen’s lures are designed to fool fish. If McLeroy and Oktar have their way, Texas school children may end up as ignorant as the fish, and as easily fooled.
Millard Fillmore's Bathtub 
“which had long to be shown to be full of the proverbial bull waste product.”
“Not much credibility there, sorry.”
as usal you still site no! source and just put them down you say it from thy own mouth with no credit or even lest notation about what it or how it is shot down in fact you are shooting yourself down for not noting any info but just saying by your word that what i have sited is wrong in the fact you are in the wrong and i see the need for a redo on your part for not showing proof of you THOUGHT.
LikeLike
“I find it humorous that you claim not to know what AiG is and then copy/paste a link to it. And an angelfire site, for some reason. Not much credibility there, sorry.
Same with godsaidmansaid.com, which had long to be shown to be full of the proverbial bull waste product.”
first of this has nothing to do with what we are talking about second i really dont know what AiG is i just went searching on the internet to find some info and i might have happened to stumble on one of their sites but that has nothing to do with our main topic
LikeLike
I need to correct something I wrote in an earlier post: “I think humans typically have one less caudal (”tail) vertebra than our chimp and gorilla cousins – no big deal.”
Apparently, it is chimps that typically have one less tail vertebra than humans.
I hope the hit-and-run poster anonymous returns to defend her/his claims. I still want to know what s/he thought were “quite different” between the blood proteins, since they seem to be pretty similar.
LikeLike
Anonymoustoo, your alleged Hitler quote doesn’t appear in Mein Kampf as far as I can find, and as you seemed to try to imply. But here are two quotes from Mein Kampf (translated into English. of course) as I found on the web, with references:
“Hence today I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator: by defending myself against the Jew, I am fighting for the work of the Lord.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 65.
“The folkish-minded man, in particular, has the sacred duty, each in his own denomination, of making people stop just talking superficially of God’s will, and actually fulfill God’s will, and not let God’s word be desecrated. For God’s will gave men their form, their essence and their abilities. Anyone who destroys His work is declaring war on the Lord’s creation, the divine will.” — Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, Ralph Mannheim, ed., New York: Mariner Books, 1999, p. 562.
Here’s another series of quote translated from the German:
“First to set fire to their synagogues or schools and to bury and cover with dirt whatever will not burn, so that no man will ever again see a stone or cinder of them. …”
“Second, I advise that their houses also be razed and destroyed. …”
“Third, I advise that all their prayer books and Talmudic writings, in which such idolatry, lies, cursing and blasphemy are taught, be taken from them. …”
“Fourth, I advise that their rabbis be forbidden to teach henceforth on pain of loss of life and limb. …”
“Fifth, I advise that safe-conduct on the highways be abolished completely for the Jews. …”
“Sixth, I advise that usury be prohibited to them, and that all cash and treasure of silver and gold be taken from them. … Such money should now be used in … the following [way]… Whenever a Jew is sincerely converted, he should be handed [a certain amount]…”
“Seventh, I commend putting a flail, an ax, a hoe, a spade, a distaff, or a spindle into the hands of young, strong Jews and Jewesses and letting them earn their bread in the sweat of their brow… For it is not fitting that they should let us accursed Goyim toil in the sweat of our faces while they, the holy people, idle away their time behind the stove, feasting and farting, and on top of all, boasting blasphemously of their lordship over the Christians by means of our sweat. No, one should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants.”
“If we wish to wash our hands of the Jews’ blasphemy and not share in their guilt, we have to part company with them. They must be driven from our country” and “we must drive them out like mad dogs.” (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Jews_and_Their_Lies)
That last series of quotes wasn’t from Hitler: it was from the founder of Protestant Christianity, Martin Luther. Hitler was a Christian of the Catholic faith.
LikeLike
Hitler didn’t admire Darwin, and in fact banned the teaching and use of Darwinian theory (especially with regard to blood transfusions). Is there no fact of history creationists will not distort? Is there no fact of science creationists will not distort? Is there any fact creationists will honor?
Can you find any textbook that features Haeckel’s error published since 1950? Please apprise us of it. You guys are stuck so far in the past it’ll be Jetson-city before you hit the 21st century.
Hoary old creationist quote mines — I suppose that if one holds no understanding of any science at all, then those quotes might seem either accurate, or damaging to evolution. But in fact, they are neither.
And that’s the major problem with creationism, A2. I suppose you don’t regard yourself as an inherently dishonest person given to larceny and slander. But to make a case against evolution, you must hack up the words of honorable men, make claims at variance with the truth, and pretend to be a stuffy know-it-all who worries about history, though apparently not knowing the history you cite. Is that what you set out to do?
LikeLike
Ed,
You still haven’t answered my questions; but no matter, you have provided amusement for the few visitors with open, scientific minds.
I also enjoyed the link above from the ever-credulous Pam.
Someone may also enjoy these few quotes I gathered – several from bleary-eyed creationist idiots, I’m sure – and one from your King Charlie:
“Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless.” -Professor Louis Bounoure, past president of the Biological Society of Strassbourg, Director of the Strassbourg Zoological Museum, Director of Research at the French National Center of Scientific Research.
“Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species.” -Dr. Etheridge, senior paleontologist of the British Museum of Natural History, cited in Dr. Scott Huse, The Collapse of Evolution.
“So many essential conditions are necessary for life to exist on our earth that it is mathematically impossible that all of them could exist in proper relationship by chance on any one earth at one time.” -Dr. A. Cressy Morrison, past president of the New York Academy of Sciences.
“At this point the war centering around Darwinism and its control over the scientific discussion of origins is going well for the creationists, and evolution is being defeated in many battles.” -Dr. Paul D. Ackerman (It’s a Young World After All, 1986)
“It is not difficult for me to have this faith, for it is incontrovertible that where there is a plan there is intelligence – an orderly, unfolding universe testifies to the truth of the most majestic statement ever uttered – ‘In the beginning, God.'” -Dr. Arthur H. Compton, Nobel Laureate (Physics)
“Question is: Can you tell me anything you know about evolution, any one thing, any one thing that is true? I tried that question on the geology staff at the Field Museum of Natural History and the only answer I got was silence. I tried it on the members of the Evolutionary Morphology Seminar in the University of Chicago, a very prestigious body of evolutionists, and all I got there was silence for a long time and eventually one person said, ‘I do know one thing – it ought not to be taught in high school.'” -Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist, British Museum of Natural History, in his 1981 Keynote address at the American Museum of Natural History
“The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking to the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of the lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world.” – Charles Darwin
Another book you might want to read, this one on ‘social’ evolution, is by another ardent Darwin admirer. The book is called ‘Mein Kampf’.
“I regard Christianity as the most fatal, seductive lie that has ever existed.” – Adolf Hitler
And are you sure Ed, that none of your beloved Texas textbooks include any use of Ernst Haeckel’s embryo hogwash? You wouldn’t want to be seen as any sort of supporter of that, would you?
LikeLike
re: cats which are partial microbes (above) What do creationist, idists say about co-evolution and the unintended negative impacts of natural selection?
from Science in the News (Sigma Xi)
LikeLike
In repeated tests, since the beginning of history, trees have been found incapable of lying. Therefore, the counts they give are accurate, in almost every case.
LikeLike
then why has it been a geuss for thousands of years apr 7k
Science as commonly understood in the modern day has only really been available since the 19th century. Before that, humanity had little choice but to make up religious stories to explain the world around them – for example, believing that the sun was Ras firey chariot racing across the sky or that the Earth was flat.
Of course, since the rise of science … these stories have been shown to be false. However, several thousand years of cultural ingraining has left certain such superstitious stories hard to expunge from society, even though the evidence is clearly against them.
do you not get the picture here evolution is varied and still cannot put down the fact of creation
Explained above. Religion is no more than the product of early human ignorance, trying to find explanations for the world they saw around them.
And I do wish you would properly format your comments, your current style leaves it very hard to separate what you are merely copy/pasting and what you are actually typing under your own power.
this is true so this one shoots itself down
You have one unreliable witness who says Darwin recanted and a reliable one who says he did not. Which one will you believe, hm? Of course, even if Darwin did recant then it changes nothing about the theory at all – since, as stated, it relies on observable evidence and not the word of any one man.
this one not true because you cannot truthfully coutn the years of a tree by the rings it has on the trunk
Actually, you can.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dendrochronology
this one is a laugh because you cannot find trully the dates of languages both on creationist/evolutionist point of view
Due to grammatical and spelling errors, your sentence is incomprehensible. I have no idea what you’re trying to say there.
carbond dating proven inadequite and not a even of the slitest truthfull in its dates
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Carbon_Dating_is_false,_the_Earth_is_not_millions_of_years_old
http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=707
http://www.avalanche.org/~moonstone/snowpack/snow%20layer%20densification.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6V-4H6GPRG-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2a015a6228be4ba0f728e64e9d8820a4
Carbon dating is actually very accurate within a certain range. You get beyond that range and it starts to not be as accurate. However, there are many other isotopes and other substances used to date things extremely accurately.
I find it humorous that you claim not to know what AiG is and then copy/paste a link to it. And an angelfire site, for some reason. Not much credibility there, sorry.
Same with godsaidmansaid.com, which had long to be shown to be full of the proverbial bull waste product.
You really do need to try much harder.
LikeLike
i would like to ajourn seeing that the time is late i will continue in the morning
yours truly
Evolution is False
till the morning
LikeLike
Creationism is what is known as a hypothesis (and it is a poor one at that, really). A hypothesis could otherwise be called a ‘wild guess’ or ‘a stab in the dark’. It is an idea that has no evidence to back it up. Intelligent Design also falls under this term.
then why has it been a geuss for thousands of years apr 7k
evolution Creationist claims are numerous and varied, so it is often difficult to track down information on any given claim. Plus, creationists constantly come up with new claims which need addressing. This site attempts, as much as possible, to make it easy to find rebuttals and references from the scientific community to any and all of the various creationist claims. It is updated frequently; see the What’s New page for the latest changes.
Since most creationism is folklore, the claims are organized in an outline format following that of Stith Thompson’s Motif-Index of Folk-Literature. Sections CA through CG deal with claims against conventional science, and sections CH through CJ contain claims about creationism itself.
This collection is intended primarily as a guidepost and introduction. The explanations are not in depth (with a few exceptions), but most responses include links, references, and sources for more information. These are not just added for show. Readers are strongly encouraged to pursue additional reliable sources. We hope that readers will put in the effort to gain enough understanding of the subject so that they will not just parrot the information here, but will be able to explain it to others.
do you not get the picture here evolution is varied and still cannot put down the fact of creation
The story of Darwin’s recanting is not true. Shortly after Darwin’s death, Lady Hope told a gathering that she had visited Darwin on his deathbed and that he had expressed regret over evolution and had accepted Christ. However, Darwin’s daughter Henrietta, who was with him during his last days, said Lady Hope never visited during any of Darwin’s illnesses, that Darwin probably never saw her at any time, and that he never recanted any of his scientific views (Clark 1984, 199; Yates 1994).
The story would be irrelevant even if true. The theory of evolution rests upon reams of evidence from many different sources, not upon the authority of any person or persons.
this is true so this one shoots itself down
The age of the oldest living thing does not indicate dates of events happening before it. It merely shows that no global cataclysm happened less than 4900 years ago.
Tree rings give an unbroken record back more than 11,000 years (Becker and Kromer 1993; Becker et al. 1991; Stuiver et al. 1986). A worldwide cataclysm during that time would have broken the tree ring record.
The King Clone creosote bush in the Mojave Desert is 11,700 years old
this one not true because you cannot truthfully coutn the years of a tree by the rings it has on the trunk
The fact that something can happen in less than 3,000 years is not evidence that the earth is young.
Religions can indeed develop quickly. Witness Scientology, which arose in much less than one generation. Languages also can develop quickly, in just a few generations. American Sign Language is an example.
However, the evidence indicates that languages and religions (not to mention the earth itself) are substantially older. For example, all the language families from North and South America except Eskimo-Aleut are distinct from Old World languages, and North America was not settled until 12,000 years ago at least. The earliest candidate for written language is about 8,000 years old (Li et al. 2003).
Coincidences between archaeological and linguistic evidence lead to the conclusion that Austronesians living in Taiwan 6,000 years ago had pigs (Diamond 1997, 342-345).
this one is a laugh because you cannot find trully the dates of languages both on creationist/evolutionist point of view
The Pyramids are by no means the oldest human structures. Older structures show much less refinement. Earlier structures are not as common because they were often made of wood and bone, which do not preserve as well as stone. Still, there are remains of some such structures. The earliest evidence of a man-made habitation is the Terra Amata site in France, which has remains of huts from about 380,000 years ago. “The dwellings consisted of small poles supported by rocks for walls and larger poles in the center to support the roof” (Streich n.d.). (A 2-million-year-old circle of stones from Olduvai Gorge is not generally accepted as a legitimate artifact; Tattersall 1993.)
The Pyramids themselves show progressive development in their architecture (Edwards 1991).
The evolution of architecture is cultural evolution, which has little or nothing to do with biological evolution. Complex structures were probably driven by the development of agriculture, which ties a community to one location. Evolution into anatomically modern humans predated that by quite a bit.
carbond dating proven inadequite and not a even of the slitest truthfull in its dates
http://www.angelfire.com/mi/dinosaurs/carbondating.html
http://www.specialtyinterests.net/carbon14.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/docs/tree_ring.asp
http://digg.com/general_sciences/Carbon_Dating_is_false,_the_Earth_is_not_millions_of_years_old
http://www.godsaidmansaid.com/topic3.asp?Cat2=262&ItemID=707
http://www.avalanche.org/~moonstone/snowpack/snow%20layer%20densification.htm
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V6V-4H6GPRG-2&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=2a015a6228be4ba0f728e64e9d8820a4
Prehistoric humans built megalithic monuments, created sophisticated art, and showed evidence of other skills demonstrating that they were as intelligent as modern humans. Yet they lived for about 190,000 years before beginning written records 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. Why the wait?
Source:
Humphreys, D. Russell. 2005. Evidence for a young world. Impact 384 (June): vi.
Response:
Agriculture brings with it many cultural changes, including cities, significant personal property, and trade. All the earliest known writings are recordkeeping for property in agricultural societies. There was no need for such records before the development of agriculture and its consequences. Thus, the origin of agriculture also determined the origin of writing.
Recent human evolution (also discussed with the origin of agriculture) may have applied to writing, too.
so they had i personal issue and thats why they didnt wrigth manuscriptts about the things they did
LikeLike
Here, once again thanks to talkorigins.org, is a long list of creationist claims that have long since been debunked.
http://talkorigins.org/indexcc/
i have heard is that evolution still a theory
It is a theory and it is also observed fact. Just like gravity is a theory and that germs cause disease is a theory. Science uses the term ‘theory’ in a way that most people are unfamiliar with and it can lead to confusion. A lot of people think of ‘theory’ as a guess, where science uses it much more alike to ‘supported by evidence, rigorously tested and found to be correct after countless experiments’.
and creation (a beleif) and not exactly a theory so to speak
Creationism is what is known as a hypothesis (and it is a poor one at that, really). A hypothesis could otherwise be called a ‘wild guess’ or ‘a stab in the dark’. It is an idea that has no evidence to back it up. Intelligent Design also falls under this term.
The sites I linked to and mentioned previously are run by experts in their fields – well, the first lot are. AiG, DI and that selection are not run by experts by any stretch of the imagination.
PZ Myers, for example, is a well regarded biology professor at the University of Minnesota. His site is likewise well regarded as being honest, informative and up to date with the latest findings in the field. Try it here: http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/
LikeLike
note all you sites are mostly blogs with sitable people but it could and probablly is in the opinnion of the beholder you choose
LikeLike
It also is a great collection of long debunked creationist claims which, for reasons which defy rational thought, still get brought up from time to time
please site me a prevouis creation.vs.evolution problem that has won and which ever side i dont care but all i have heard is that evolution still a theory(and always will be looking for and trying to look for credit to prove true) and creation (a beleif) and not exactly a theory so to speak
their are tons of info waiting for you to belief (and that is true) but they twist their own theory to get it to fit the missing puzzle peice so it may hopefully look good in the finish for people to believe
LikeLike
Yet again you display your ignorance on this particular matter. Anyone with even a casual interest in the topic would know of the following web resources.
I recommend talkorigins.org simply because it has a huge resource of knowledge, all of which are peer reviewed and properly referenced scientific findings. It also is a great collection of long debunked creationist claims which, for reasons which defy rational thought, still get brought up from time to time
Panda’s Thumb is another well regarded website, well worth a look.
The blog of PZ Myers is also an excellent resource.
AiG is Answers In Genesis, an example of people who actually don’t know what they’re doing trying to appear like they have a clue. That is otherwise known as pseudo-science. The Discovery Institute and Uncommon Descent also like to do the same and are generally regarded as being sad jokes.
If you did not know about such resources, I suggest you take a step back and do some research before continuing. As it stands you are doing little but making yourself come across as ignorant and immature and wasting everyone else’s time.
LikeLike
i look up the sites is their no further combac for you and all these sites say what i already have put down
LikeLike
so please re quote your question kindly in a fashion readable for all.
LikeLike
AiG never heard of it but you seem to like the cite “letstalkorigins.org” allot
so it doesnt really matter does it furthermore i dont bother to look up and know about AiG so you bring up another blank point
LikeLike
VARIATION WITHIN A SPECIES IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!!
It is an aspect of evolution, it is part of the mechanism of it. No matter have many times you repeat exclamation points or how many times you unnecessarily use upper case letters, that is not going to change.
You have failed to read the links provided properly and failed to provide any evidence for your claims. Kindly do so or change the topic.
LikeLike
“According to the traditional peppered moth story, cryptic coloration confers protection to the moths from predators, and as the habitat changed due to industrial pollution, natural selection caused the frequencies of different color varieties of the moth to change. As the trees became darker, the lighter moths stood out more, so the darker ones became more plentiful, and vice versa as the pollution cleared. That story is no longer supportable because of flaws found in the experiments, such as where the moths rested, and the occurrence of contrary data, such as unaccountable frequencies of uncamouflaged moths in areas. ”
this proves nothing attal is it me or is this not making sence they change evolution to their liking
Although the experiments were not perfect, they were not fatally flawed. Even though Kettlewell released his moths in daylight when a night release would have been more true to nature, he used the same procedure in areas that differed only in the amount of industrial pollution, showing conclusively that industrial pollution was a factor responsible for the difference in predation between color varieties. Similar arguments can be made for all other experiments. Although no experiment is perfect (nor can be), even imperfect experiments can give supporting or disconfirming evidence. In the case of peppered moths, many experiments have been done, and they all support the traditional story (Grant 1999).
“Even without the experiments, the peppered moth story would be well established. Peppered moth melanism has both risen and fallen with pollution levels, and they have done so in many sites on two continents (Cook 2003; Grant 1999).
The peppered moth story is consistent with many other experiments and observations of crypsis and coloration in other species. For example, bird predation maintains the colorations of Heliconius cydno, which has different coloration in different regions, in both regions mimicking a noxious Heliconius species (Kapan 2001). Natural selection acting on the peppered moth would be the parsimonious hypothesis even if there were no evidence to support it.
The peppered moth story is not simple. The full story as it is known today fills thousands of pages of journal articles. Familiarity with the literature and with the moths in the field is needed to evaluate all the articles. But the research and the debates over its implications have all been done in the open. Charges of fraud and misconduct stem from neglect and misrepresentation of the research by the people making the charges (Grant 2000). Of those familiar with the literature, none doubt that bird predation is of primary importance in the changing frequencies of melanism in peppered moths (Majerus 1999).
In teaching any subject to beginners, simplifying complex topics is proper. The peppered moth story is a valuable tool for helping students understand how nature really works. Teachers would be right to omit the complexities from the story if they judged that their students were not yet ready for that higher level of learning (Rudge 2000). ”
#1 THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION, BUT SIMPLY A COLOR CHANGE BACK AND FORTH WITHIN A STABLE SPECIES.
#2 VARIATION WITHIN A SPECIES IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!!
They have been telling us for years that the variation in the wing color of the peppered moth was the fact that they rest on the sides of trees, and the trees became darker. Well, it turns out that they did not even get that story straight.
so is the full story actually truer i would go back on your belief about evolution and question your thought procces and what you believe in weather it be true or false.
LikeLike
This is an excellent demonstration of the function of camouflage, but, since it begins and ends with peppered moths and no new species is formed, it is quite irrelevant as evidence for evolution.”—On CalI, July 2, 1973,p.9
In reality, the peppered moth did not change at all. The dark-winged type is simply a Mendelian recessive, and both types are continually produced. Birds ate one kind and left the other. Mendelian genetic variations cannot produce evolution, which is change across species.
Two leading British evolutionary scientists, said this about evolutionary claims for the peppered moth:
“We doubt, however, that anything more is involved in these cases than the selection of already existing genes.”—*Fred Hoyle and *Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (1981), p. 5.
“The recent work of H.B.D. Kettlewell on industrial melanism has certainly confirmed the hypothesis that natural selection takes place in nature. This is the story of the black mutant of the common peppered moth which, as KettlewelI has shown with beautiful precision, increases in numbers in the vicinity of industrial centers and decreases, being more easily exposed to predators, in rural areas. Here, say the neo-Darwinians, is natural selection, that is, evolution, actually going on. But to this we may answer: selection, yes; the color of moths or snails or mice is clearly controlled by visibility to predators; but ‘evolution’? Do these observations explain how in the first place there came to be any moths or snails or mice at all? By what right are we to extrapolate the pattern by which color or other such superficial characters are governed to the origin of species, let alone of classes, orders, phyla of living organisms?”—Marjorie Grene, “The Faith of Darwinism, “Encounter, November 1959, p. 52.
There is a postscript to the peppered moth story. The above description included data about the habits of peppered moths in England, as cited by evolutionists. They have been telling us for years that the variation in the wing color of the peppered moth was the fact that they rest on the sides of trees, and the trees became darker. Well, it turns out that they did not even get that story straight. Peppered moths do not alight on the sides of trees! And the stock evolutionary “research photos” were made of dead moths pasted on the sides of trees so is this a true or are you going to shoot it down as false like all the rest
LikeLike
Your cutting and pasting skills still seem functional. That is nice.
But what is the point you are actually attempting to make?
If you are somehow attempting to show that the existence and changes within the Peppered moth population somehow disproves evolution then you are far from keeping up to date with current research. Indeed, you are also forgetting that all experiments must be carried out under strict guidelines more commonly known as the scientific method. Not using his method renders experiments worthless.
The entire Peppered Moth story is covered here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601_2.html
and continues here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB601.html
I suggest you do actual research before copying and pasting from places. I assume you took that text from AiG or some other pseudo-science site.
LikeLike
Let us consider this matter a little more deeply:
Because of dominant and recessive genes (Mendelian genetics), this little moth continued to produce both light and dark offspring for thousands of years, while the birds kept eating the dark varieties. Yet all that time, dark ones continued to be born! This is proof of the stability of the species, which is exactly the opposite of evolutionary “proof!”
For nearly a century, the birds ate the lighter ones, but the darker ones kept being born. In recent years, industrial pollution laws are making the air cleaner, and the darker ones are more frequently eaten.
This is not evolution, but simply a color change back and forth within a stable species.
THIS IS NOT EVOLUTION, BUT SIMPLY A COLOR CHANGE BACK AND FORTH WITHIN A STABLE SPECIES.
LikeLike
By the 1880s in the Manchester, England area, toxic gases and soot were killing the light-colored lichen on the trees and darkened even more the tree trunks. The changeover from light to dark moths began there also. The smoke and smog from the factories darkened the trunks of the trees where the moths rested. This darkening of the trees made the dark-hued moths difficult to see, and the lighter ones quite easy for the birds to spot.
By the 1950s, 98% of the peppered moths were the dark variety. All the while, the moths continued to produce both dark and light varieties.
Evolutionists point to this as a “proof of evolution,” but it is NOT a proof of evolution. We all know that there can be variation with species. Variation within a species is not evolution.
There are dozens of varieties of dogs, cats, and pigeons. But no new species have been produced. They are still dogs, cats, and pigeons.
There can be light peppered moths and dark peppered moths,—but they are all still peppered moths. Even as Asimov admitted in the above quotation, they are but variations within a single species. The name of the single species that includes them both is Biston betularla. They are all peppered moths, nothing more and nothing less.
When *Harrison Matthews wrote the introduction for the 1971 edition of *Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species, he denied the possibility of evolution in several respects, and made this accurate observation about the peppered moth:
“The [peppered moth] experiments beautifully demonstrate natural selection—or survival of the fittest—in action, but they do not show evolution in progress, for however the populations may alter in their content of light, intermediate, or dark forms, all the moths remain from beginning to end Biston betularia.”—*Harrison Matthews, “Introduction,” to Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species (1971 edition), p. xi.
LikeLike
“One of the arguments of the creationists is that no one has ever seen the forces of evolution at work. That would seem the most nearly irrefutable of their arguments, and yet it, too, is wrong. In fact, if any confirmation of Darwinism were needed, it has turned up in examples of natural selection that have taken place before our eyes (now that we know what to watch for). A notable example occurred in Darwin’s native land. In England, it seems, the peppered moth exists in two varieties, a light and a dark.”—*Isaac Asimov, Asimov’s New Guide to Science (1984), p. 780.
Before 1845 near Birmingham, England, the peppered moth was primarily light-colored, but some had darker wings. (These darker varieties were called the melanic or carbonaria forms.) In accordance with Mendelian genetics, some peppered moth offspring were always born with light-colored wings while others had darker wings. Thus it had been for centuries. The little moths would alight on the light-colored tree trunks; and birds, able to see the darker ones more easily, ate them and tended to ignore the light-colored varieties. Yet both varieties continued to be produced. But then the industrial revolution came and the trees became darker from smoke and grime—and birds began eating the lighter ones. In the 1850s, about 98% of the uneaten peppered moths were the light variety; because of recessive and dominant genes, peppered moths regularly produced both varieties as offspring.
LikeLike
And what, specifically, aspect of the Peppered Moth would you like to discuss?
LikeLike
“This is the most striking evolutionary change ever to have been witnessed by man.”—*International Wildlife Encyclopedia (1970 edition), Vol. 20, p. 2706.
Noting that Darwin was plagued by his inability to demonstrate the evolution of even one species, *Jastrow said:
“Had he known it, an example was at hand which would have provided him with the proof he needed. The case was an exceedingly rare one—the peppered moth.”—*Robert Jastrow, Red Giants and White Dwarfs, p. 235.
In his large 940-page book, Asimov’s New Guide to Science, *Isaac Asimov mentions that some fools oppose evolution, saying it has never been proven; and then Asimov gives us a single, outstanding evidence: the peppered moth. This is astounding—in view of the fact that it is no evidence at all! Isaac Asimov is the leading evolutionary science writer of the mid-twentieth century. If the peppered moth is the best he can come up with in defense of evolution, surely evolutionists have no case.
LikeLike
THE PEPPERED MOTH
– PEPPERED MOTH—The peppered moth in England is the most frequently discussed evolutionary “proof” of natural selection. In fact, it is mentioned ten times for every instance in which any other evidence is mentioned! Therefore, it deserves special attention. The problem is that evolutionists really have no proof, and the peppered moth surely is not one.
LikeLike
You stated that variation within a species is not evolution. Yet it is an aspect of such and you have yet to produce any sort of evidence which supports your claim, instead you linked to a page on talkorigins.org which actually disproved what you were claiming.
IF YOU WONT TO TALK ABOUT IT LETS START WITH THE FAMOUS PEPPERED MOTH IS THIS OK TO YOU?
LikeLike
Yes, your understanding of Evolution is mistaken. You then started talking about flags for some reason you still have not made clear. Perhaps you would like to set out your argument in logical point form?
You stated that variation within a species is not evolution. Yet it is an aspect of such and you have yet to produce any sort of evidence which supports your claim, instead you linked to a page on talkorigins.org which actually disproved what you were claiming.
LikeLike
because you wanted to know what evolution is saying that my understanding of evolution is a misconseption
And, as per the scientific definition, variation with within a species as an aspect of Evolution. So unless you have somehow gained the authority to define what, exactly, the Theory of Evolution is … well, your claim is wrong
WHAT IS YOUR POINT ANYWAY DO YOU EVEN HAVE A QUESTION OR ARE YOU WASTING MY TIME
LikeLike
wow you may be dumber than i thought
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
And you linked to that in relation to what, exactly? To prove what, exactly? It certainly does not act as evidence against anything I said. Indeed, it supports it.
EXACTLY SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT FROM BEFORE
You were the one, as I recall, who first started talking about flags. I am unsure why you started to do such. You may care to explain.
NEXT TIME BEFORE YOU TRY AND PULL THIS OF ASK A MORE POINTED QUESTION AIR AND MAUYBE I WILL ANSWER IN A MORE CIVIL WAY
That sentence makes no grammatical sense. I suggest you reread what you type to ensure that what you enter uses punctuation and makes sense.
LikeLike
wow you may be dumber than i thought
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html
I do not know why you are suddenly talking about flags. While one can claim that the changes in the various flags of various countries are their ‘evolved’ forms, it has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution.
EXACTLY SO WHAT IS YOUR POINT FROM BEFORE
And, as per the scientific definition, variation with within a species as an aspect of Evolution. So unless you have somehow gained the authority to define what, exactly, the Theory of Evolution is … well, your claim is wrong.
NEXT TIME BEFORE YOU TRY AND PULL THIS OF ASK A MORE POINTED QUESTION AIR AND MAUYBE I WILL ANSWER IN A MORE CIVIL WAY
LikeLike
I do not know why you are suddenly talking about flags. While one can claim that the changes in the various flags of various countries are their ‘evolved’ forms, it has nothing to do with the scientific theory of evolution.
And you copy and paste from wikipedia. One, your source does not say variation amongst species is not a part of the Theory. Two, wikipedia is not a valid scientific source. Try using wikipedia as a reference or source in any sort of school paper and you would get a failing mark for sure, let alone use it as any sort of scientific reference in a research paper.
You need to try much harder than that.
LikeLike
e.g NATURAL SELECTION
P.S SORRY FOR ALL THE NUMEROUS POSTS I WILL TRY AND KEEP IT DOWN TO MAINLY ONE
LikeLike
TO MAKE IT ESIER I AM TALKING AT A CERTAIN PART OF EVOLUTION FOR THE FEABLE MINDED
LikeLike
VARIATION WITHIN A SPECIES IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!!
And, as per the scientific definition, variation with within a species as an aspect of Evolution. So unless you have somehow gained the authority to define what, exactly, the Theory of Evolution is … well, your claim is wrong.
summing this up you have no claim and if your reading abilities(which i serouisly doubt you have any) you should know what evolution is and on what type of evolution we are talking about E.G (the united states of america had a few flags that is evolution germany had many different empires under different names) but for the dumb as people like you we (ANTIevolutioners) have to explain everything dont we
In biology, evolution is the changes seen in the inherited traits of a population from one generation to the next. These changes cause populations of organisms to alter over time. Inherited traits come from the genes that are passed on to offspring during reproduction. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms. Such new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population, either non-randomly through natural selection or randomly through genetic drift.
COPIED FROM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
LikeLike
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/malleefowl.html
http://chroniclesofanevangelist.blogspot.com/2007/07/evolution-could-not-do-this-mallee-bird.html
http://www.conservapedia.com/Mallee_bird
http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MU9880210.htm
LikeLike
VARIATION WITHIN A SPECIES IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!!
And, as per the scientific definition, variation with within a species as an aspect of Evolution. So unless you have somehow gained the authority to define what, exactly, the Theory of Evolution is … well, your claim is wrong.
LikeLike
we are not talking about nature and erosion we are talking about science truly your reading skills cant be that bad if you want to talk about evolution of the american flag then lets do so but we are talking about living things not a dead mountain thats going to change obvouisly like a road but it has factors living animals so please answer my question in a better more pointed way matt
I did answer your question, it is not my fault if you are unable to grasp the concept of geological time scales; which both mountain range formation and evolution work under (again, though evolution is sometimes faster, sometimes slower depending which species you’re referring to).
You objected to the point made about being unable to see evolution at work in the current day. I used the mountain range analogy why you could not see species take on large changes in the lifespan on a contemporary human.
There is little else that can be said to explain it simpler. Except, possibly, if you wish me to start using hand puppets and large picture books. Sadly, the format provided us prohibits such.
I still find it humorous, leaving Ed to answer his own tangent, that you now demand sources and such for presented information and yet provide no credible sources yourself.
LikeLike
You’re asking the same question Darwin asked, really. When he discovered the bones of an extinct, giant, 9-banded armadillo, he thought that it was likely the modern, smaller, 9-banded armadillo evolved from the ancient giant. Armadillo changes size. Is that difficult to grasp
ARE YOU ACTUALLY ASKING SUCH A QUESTION
VARIATION WITHIN A SPECIES IS NOT EVOLUTION!!!!
LikeLike
“hink of a mountain range. During the time of your grand parents, it would have have been the same size and shape (barring avalanches and other such things). During the time of your grandchildren, it will be more or less the same shape and size. Yet that mountain range was not always there and give it a few hundred thousand years and there’s a fair chance that mountain range won’t be there at all.
Evolution works on a similar kind of time scale (sometimes faster, sometimes slower, depending on particular species). The mountain range is changing, it forms and it erodes away but through a contemporary perspective those changes are extremely hard to judge. It is only through other means of measurement and other perspectives that the past and future of that mountain range can be measured and predicted.”
we are not talking about nature and erosion we are talking about science truly your reading skills cant be that bad if you want to talk about evolution of the american flag then lets do so but we are talking about living things not a dead mountain thats going to change obvouisly like a road but it has factors living animals so please answer my question in a better more pointed way matt
Does it matter if the woodpecker’s “special sticky substance” is saliva or not? Yes. Because if it’s saliva, then Dr. Gish’s claim that the bird would die waiting to evolve the “special sticky substance” is pure hooey, total fiction, a lie — all birds have saliva.
well saliva still has to come about in the evolution chain of changes so lets rephrase this in a more suitable fashion MR. WOODPECKER WOULD DIE WAITING FOR HIS SALIVA GLANDS TO WORK AND BY THE TIME HIS SALIVA GLANDS WORKED HE WOULD BE IN THE GRAVE WITH ALL OTHER MR/MRS WOODPECKERS
“if, I’ve read three papers on the mallee that indicate that temperature swings of as much as 15 degrees happen with some regularity. Do you have a source for the claim that a 1 degree swing will kill the birds? ”
YOU DO NOT SITE ANY SOURCE OF YOUR FIND SO II CAN NOT ANSWER THIS UNTIL YOU HAVE DEBATEABLE INFO
LikeLike
Does it matter if the woodpecker’s “special sticky substance” is saliva or not? Yes. Because if it’s saliva, then Dr. Gish’s claim that the bird would die waiting to evolve the “special sticky substance” is pure hooey, total fiction, a lie — all birds have saliva.
Temperature control of an egg clutch is rather important throughout bird-dom. I think you’re misstating the range of temperatures the creatures can take, and I worry that much of your other claims are similarly breathlessly rephrased common, ordinary things.
From what would the mallee, a mound-nesting megapode, evolve from? How about one of the other ten or twelve extinct mound-nesting megapodes known from Australia?
You’re asking the same question Darwin asked, really. When he discovered the bones of an extinct, giant, 9-banded armadillo, he thought that it was likely the modern, smaller, 9-banded armadillo evolved from the ancient giant. Armadillo changes size. Is that difficult to grasp?
LikeLike
Eif, I’ve read three papers on the mallee that indicate that temperature swings of as much as 15 degrees happen with some regularity. Do you have a source for the claim that a 1 degree swing will kill the birds?
Certainly you are aware that crocodiles and alligators — cousins of the birds — use a similar method for incubating their eggs. The temperature pushes gender selection in the eggs, but otherwise may swing over quite a wide range. Other Australian megapodes that use mound egg nests also show gender skewing according to temperature — but not death within a fairly wide range.
What is your source on this bird? Your sources don’t square with anything else I’m finding on the bird.
LikeLike
That, obviously, is not what I am saying what-so-ever. As I commented earlier, it seems your reading comprehension skills are rather substandard at this point in time. Your educational institution are obviously not doing as well as they might otherwise hope, I must assume.
Think of a mountain range. During the time of your grand parents, it would have have been the same size and shape (barring avalanches and other such things). During the time of your grandchildren, it will be more or less the same shape and size. Yet that mountain range was not always there and give it a few hundred thousand years and there’s a fair chance that mountain range won’t be there at all.
Evolution works on a similar kind of time scale (sometimes faster, sometimes slower, depending on particular species). The mountain range is changing, it forms and it erodes away but through a contemporary perspective those changes are extremely hard to judge. It is only through other means of measurement and other perspectives that the past and future of that mountain range can be measured and predicted.
LikeLike
ERRORS IN ABOVE TEXT
LikeLike
MATT”The links provided plenty of instances for transitional fossils, whether you could comprehend or not … well, that is your problem and not mine. And the Theory of Evolution predicts that there would be no clear transitional species that could be identified as such in the present day, simply because all species are constantly in the process of specification – evolution is still take place, it just takes places over such a long scale of time that it is very hard to see with a contemporary perspective.”
SO YOU ARE SAYING THAT EVOLUTION IS ALL AROUND US BUT WE WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO SEE IT THATS A REAL LAUGH ITS LIKE A BLIND CURTAIN WE ALL SAY IS THEIR TO JUST BE THEIR INCOGNITO ITS INVISIBLE THATS STRANGE BECAUSE WE HAVE BETTER MEANS OF THINGS TO FIND
LikeLike
You forgot to mention that there’s nothing particularly special about the mallee’s bill, and you failed to note the nesting habit was rather common. What else have you left out? Why not just describe things as they are?
THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT PEOPLE LIKE YOU DONT UNDERSTAND VERY MUCH SO PEOPLE HAVE TO DUMD DOWN THE “STUFF” FOR PEOPLE LIKE YOU TO UNDERSTAND
The leipoa, or Australian moundbird; it incubates eggs naturally in sandy mounds
Baby chicks of the Australian mallee fowl hatch only because their parents know how to take temperature. If the mallee chick’s parents couldn’t tell when the temperature in the egg-chamber was exactly 33 degrees Celsius (91-92 degrees Fahrenheit), their eggs wouldn’t hatch. This would mean no more mallee fowl! In fact, if the parents are wrong by more than just one degree either way, it’s bye-bye birdie!
Mallee fowl don’t sit on their eggs like most birds do to let their body-heat incubate the eggs. They build a large mound and monitor its temperature with their bill and tongue. The first white settlers in Australia to come across these huge mounds in the late 1700s thought they were Aboriginal burial mounds. Only later did they discover the grayish-brown, spotted birds that built them.
The mallee fowl starts building its incredible mound as the breeding season approaches in spring. The parents dig a pit almost a meter (three feet) deep. They scratch up leaves, twigs, bark and other plant material, and scrape them into the pit. When rain soaks the debris the birds build it into a heap, covering the litter with thick sand or soil. When the vegetation rots, the heat increases in the mound, like a compost heap that gardeners use.
Then an amazing thing happens …
Birds take temperature of mound
The birds take the temperature of the mound. The male probes it with his bill, and when both parents are satisfied the temperature in the mound is “hatching heat” (33°C), the hen lays her first egg. She then lays a single egg each week or two, for five or six months. She lays 15-20 eggs over this time. As each egg is laid, the male opens the mound and carefully moves the egg into the right position. He then prepares the mound for the next egg.
Mother mallee hen usually starts laying in late September (southern hemisphere spring). From then until April, father fowl uses his beak and tongue to ensure the temperature of the mound stays at hatching heat.
Father fowl keeps up the heat
In a dazzling display of temperature sensing, the bird constantly alters the structure of the mound to maintain the exact temperature. If the heat in the mound increases because of rapidly decaying plant material, he uncovers the eggs to let air circulate around them. When the hot summer sun beats down, he adds sand or soil to the mound. This acts as a shield to protect the eggs.
In autumn, as the cooler weather causes temperatures to drop, father mallee fowl uncovers the mound early in the day so the heat can reach the eggs. He covers it in the evening to retain the heat. Each egg needs seven weeks’ incubation. This means that some eggs will hatch while the mother is laying others.
The newly hatched chick now has up to 15 hours of gruelling work ahead of it. It has to tunnel its way through nearly a meter of soil and debris to reach the open air. Amazingly, the chicks look after themselves from the moment they hatch, and can fly within 24 hours.
Mallee fowl is called the “thermometer bird”
The mallee fowl is sometimes called the “thermometer bird,” because its ability to monitor the mound’s temperature is so accurate.
To Bible-believing Christians, the mallee fowl’s ability shows remarkable design and planning by God the Creator of all life:
Both mother and father birds work together to prepare their egg-chamber, yet they also specialize in different tasks.
The male is able to constantly monitor, and alter if necessary, the precise temperature needed to hatch the eggs laid by the female.
The newborn chicks have to find their way through a meter of soil unaided, and can fend for themselves from the moment they hatch.
Everything must work perfectly through a long cycle.
Impossible to evolve
Now try to think how the mallee fowl’s breeding cycle could have evolved. All you get is unanswered questions:
How would the male and female determine their duties?
How could the chicks know they must keep tunneling for up to 15 hours?
What if the newly hatched chicks gave up after an eight-hour day?
And how would the male know, from his first try at parenting, that he must maintain the temperature through various seasons and weather conditions at exactly 33°C or he will not produce any chicks?
What could the first mallee fowl evolve from? Would it evolve from a bird that can’t take temperature? Not likely, because its whole existence depends on knowing the exact temperature for its eggs. And if it evolved from a bird that already knew how to take temperature, how did the first temperature-taking bird evolve? Evolution has nothing but guesses for this incredible ability.
If the first mallee fowl parents didn’t get everything exactly right the first time, there would be no more mallee fowl. We believe that instinct and perfect design implanted by God the Creator is by far the most reasonable explanation for the existence and survival of the mallee fowl.
COPIED FROM
http://www.users.bigpond.com/rdoolan/malleefowl.html
Noun 1. leipoa – Australian mound bird; incubates eggs naturally in sandy mounds
Leipoa ocellata, lowan, mallee fowl
megapode, mound bird, mound-bird, scrub fowl, mound builder – large-footed short-winged birds of Australasia; build mounds of decaying vegetation to incubate eggs
genus Leipoa – mallee fowl
mallee hen – adult female mallee fowl
COPIED FROM
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Leipoa
LikeLike
“You remind me of the grand creationist Duane Gish claiming that woodpeckers have a “special sticky substance on their tongues” to use to get insects to eat. He argued that “Mr. Woodpecker” would die waiting for the evolution of the sticky substance, and so, Gish claimed, “Mr. Woodpecker” had to have been made wholecloth by God”
DOES IT MATTER IF IT IS SALIVA OR NOT NO! IT STILL IS STICKY SUBTSTANCE
LikeLike
At least three other birds in Australia also build heat-controlling mounds. There are other birds around the world, and many more that nest on the ground and use microclimate controls. The “thermometer” in the mallee’s bill is nothing more than a heat sensitive area, and no more accurate than sprinkling warmed baby formula on the back of your hand to make sure it’s done right. There is no waiting for heat sensitivity to evolve. Most animals are already heat sensitive
EXCAUSE ME BUT THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THE REST OF THE OTHER BIRDS BECAUSE IF THE TEMP VARIES LESS THAN ONE DEGREE UP OR DOWN THE LITTLE BIRD ARE DEAD
LikeLike
At least three other birds in Australia also build heat-controlling mounds. There are other birds around the world, and many more that nest on the ground and use microclimate controls. The “thermometer” in the mallee’s bill is nothing more than a heat sensitive area, and no more accurate than sprinkling warmed baby formula on the back of your hand to make sure it’s done right. There is no waiting for heat sensitivity to evolve. Most animals are already heat sensitive.
So, it’s an interesting adaptation, but not particularly unique. It requires no great mutation to get there from other mound-building birds in the area, no great mutation to get there from other ground-nesting birds in the area.
You remind me of the grand creationist Duane Gish claiming that woodpeckers have a “special sticky substance on their tongues” to use to get insects to eat. He argued that “Mr. Woodpecker” would die waiting for the evolution of the sticky substance, and so, Gish claimed, “Mr. Woodpecker” had to have been made wholecloth by God.
Gish forgot to mention that the “special sticky substance” is saliva, which all birds have.
You forgot to mention that there’s nothing particularly special about the mallee’s bill, and you failed to note the nesting habit was rather common. What else have you left out? Why not just describe things as they are?
Mallees are megapodes, many of which nest on the ground.
LikeLike
“In all animals that reproduce sexually, each individual is “descended with modifications” from its parents. This is evolution in action. I gather we’ve run into the limits of your understanding of evolution, and you didn’t realize that. Now you know: Every species is a “transitional” species.”
so why dont some people have tails still and some dont but no we all are alike people of course the average person has no such a thing but still why not
“We don’t have tails because there was no mutation to add them back; we are the products of our ancestry (a simple statement that is part of the foundation of Christian belief, too, so tread lightly in denying it). There is no selective pressure to get tails at present — they would present a problem in tailoring.”
why would we get rid of them in the first place
and why would it be going throu all the trouble to tailor (stupid reasoning) we dont really have clothes that you wear all the time to cover your face or whatever it would be nicer E.G (when im driving down the road [both hand on the steering wheel] i reach over with my tail drink some coffee [fyi i didnt get in a accident because i used my tail])i flush the toilet with my tail)i am more balanced with my tail)and many more)
so please be kind enouf to re explain im not smart enough to understand stupidity
and i only understand what makes sense so that is why evolution i dont understand
Paul said it’s all laid out in front of you. You can see it all if you want to. Many refuse to see the facts. AND YOU STILL BELEIVE IN SUCH A LUDICRUS THING AS EVOLUTION YOU A LAUGH
1:19:Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them
1:20For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:
1:21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen
1:22 PROFESSING THEMSELVES TO BE WISE, THE BECAME FOOLS,
yours truly evolution is FALSE
LikeLike
about the melle bird first of it could not have mutations from whatever it started of from because mutations are bad
mutations are random wild events that are totally uncontrollable totally enexpected and haphazard the only thing we can predict is that it will not go outside the species and produce a new type of organism. scientist have litteraly done hundreds of thousands of mutations on fruit flies and they havent produced another species out of themselfs
evolution requires improvement mutations do not help or improve they only weaken and injure
LikeLike
“EIF, why do you claim evolution couldn’t have produced the little mallee?”
lets look at this the mallee has a thermometer in its bill that it sticks down in the nest thing and gets the temperature if this was evolving wilst the little mellees are being produced they die of because the temp is to warm/cold and then they die from it
thats one reason
LikeLike
“We don’t have tails because there was no mutation to add them back; we are the products of our ancestry (a simple statement that is part of the foundation of Christian belief, too, so tread lightly in denying it). There is no selective pressure to get tails at present — they would present a problem in tailoring.”
so why did evolution get rid of them we should have not gotten rid of them in the first place
“EIF, why do you claim evolution couldn’t have produced the little mallee? Are there no related birds that do anything like that? (Ostriches also abandon their clutches, essentially, though they raise the chicks in a kibbutz.) Are there no other creatures that use that method of incubation? (Turtles, crocodiles and alligators use the same or similar methods of incubation; lots of animals lay eggs and leave them alone.)
Who says such behaviors cannot evolve? On what basis?”
the mellee if it has one degree of difference it will die even less than a degree but that is how it proves evolution a reject theory (and not fail to reject) because you cant be evolving it has to be evolved and everything has to be in order right from the start to be able to live as a species
“Because that niche is already occupied by a fierce competitor. Living things compete where they have advantages, not where they are the underdogs”
well thats why their is evolution right because those little guys being made out of nothing lol are combating the other “things” in the pond lake etc to make more life out of no life
so you didnt exactly show me what i had for the questions i asked pleased be more detailed about your answer
LikeLike
Exactly.
LikeLike
Paul said it’s all laid out in front of you. You can see it all if you want to. Many refuse to see the facts.
LikeLike
Use an oven mitt if you have to when you flip the pages……
LikeLike
You went off on multiple tangents and imagined a lot into the questions I asked you. But failed to give a clear answer to any of them.
And you are teaching high school? Sad, but typical.
Also, please quote Romans 1:20 for me. I’m not familiar with Paul’s warnings about the creationists.
LikeLike
Wow. I think you cleared up my question about you, Ed.
LikeLike
EIF, why do you claim evolution couldn’t have produced the little mallee? Are there no related birds that do anything like that? (Ostriches also abandon their clutches, essentially, though they raise the chicks in a kibbutz.) Are there no other creatures that use that method of incubation? (Turtles, crocodiles and alligators use the same or similar methods of incubation; lots of animals lay eggs and leave them alone.)
Who says such behaviors cannot evolve? On what basis?
LikeLike
Because that niche is already occupied by a fierce competitor. Living things compete where they have advantages, not where they are the underdogs.
LikeLike
EIF posted:
In all animals that reproduce sexually, each individual is “descended with modifications” from its parents. This is evolution in action. I gather we’ve run into the limits of your understanding of evolution, and you didn’t realize that. Now you know: Every species is a “transitional” species.
We don’t have tails because there was no mutation to add them back; we are the products of our ancestry (a simple statement that is part of the foundation of Christian belief, too, so tread lightly in denying it). There is no selective pressure to get tails at present — they would present a problem in tailoring.
LikeLike
Once again you choose a premise which is completely in error. No part of evolution theory denies God.
Some people choose to believe God must be shackled in a box that is labeled “not science,” and then they choose to claim, falsely, that anything done in the name of science is contrary to God. It is not scientists who claim God is shackled so, and they cannot be held responsible for the apostasies of others.
Evolution theory was discovered and advanced by Christians. At each step of its development, in much of the research undergirding the theory, Christians play a crucial role. Romans 1:20 warns us that there will be creationists who claim that such studies deny God, and it warns us to ignore them. That’s good advice. The evidence nature presents is evidence presented by God, in the views of Christians who accept on faith that God is the creator. Creation is a second testament of God, directly from God’s own hand (and therefore, more reliable on many issues than any testament in words). Evolution is manifested by God’s creation.
In claiming that evolution denies God, one is claiming that all of creation denies God. And that is bad theology at best, apostasy and heresy in the middle of the spectrum, and blasphemy at its extreme.
Where in the world could you ever get such an idea? Certainly you cannot get the idea by studying science. There is no set of scientific papers that conclude “God isn’t here.” Why not stick to the facts?
So you think knowledge is “an anemic little brother?” We see why you might urge ignorance for school children instead of knowledge, then. Your premise is offensive as well as wrong.
Truth doesn’t need the arm of the law to prop it up. As Jefferson noted, a true theology stands on its own, and withstands discussion of scientific issues.
It’s not science that’s anemic in your model; it’s your theology.
I noted the human condition of the prostate, and you interpret it way beyond any evidence presented, to a wrong conclusion. That seems to be your modus operandus.
Why should my belief in God have anything to do with this discussion? Is it your experience that belief makes it difficult for people to treat scientific evidence as representing reality? Are you claiming that we need to screen juries to get Christians out, because they cannot deal with reality and the evidence of it? What is the relevance to a discussion of evolution theory?
In science, either there are data, or there are not. Either a theory explains and illuminates the data, or it does not, and is rejected.
The role of Christianity in that discussion should fairly and properly be restricted to making certain there is honesty in the presentation of data (which means Christians have a lot of remedial work to do on creationism and ID advocates, frankly), and noting when conclusions run out of data to back them.
So I’m not sure what you’re accusing me of being ignorant of. You don’t discuss evidence from science. You present some interesting premises which are neither part of Christianity nor part of this discussion. You take general statements known to be true, and distort them to specific applications where they are inappropriate.
And then you accuse me of ignorance and worse.
What is your own beef with God that you refuse to accept the evidence He gives us? What is your beef with most of Christianity that you have some odd view on ensoulment? What is your own lack of understanding of evolution that you think it makes any theological statement at all? Or is that a lack of understanding of Christianity, that leads you to the erroneous conclusion that, since your beliefs are denied by reality, reality must be in error?
LikeLike
Where in the world do you get the idea that understanding that a child is born of sexual union (the key thing in evolution, by the way), one doesn’t believe in a soul, or that there is some problem about ensoulment? The question is absurd from the outset, chiefly in its irrelevance to theology, let alone science.
Why do you believe reproduction requires physical reproduction of the soul? On what scripture is that idea based? Is there any scripture anywhere that supports such a claim? Okay, if not in the Torah, not in the NT, where?
Once we realize that the premise of your question is so far out of theological bounds, I think we are obligated to ask why you think this is an issue? Are you also curious about whether angels have souls, and how many of them can fit on the head of a pin?
Are you one of those people who thinks cloning clones the soul, too? Oy.
Christians start from the faith statement that the universe exists because God made it. Since scripture neither describes how such a creation was done, or can be done, nor warns against asking how it works, Christians traditionally regard scientific inquiry into those processes as near-sacred work.
The question you’re asking is bizarre, like asking what happens to the souls of all those ova left inside a woman. The premise is not grounded in Christian theology. No answer makes a whit of difference as to how God created the universe.
LikeLike
Does God Exist – Things to Consider
Once you’re ready to ask the question, “does God exist?” here are a few observations to consider as you begin your search for an objective answer:
Discoveries in astronomy have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the universe did, in fact, have a beginning. There was a single moment of creation.
Advances in molecular biology have revealed vast amounts of information encoded in each and every living cell, and molecular biologists have discovered thousands upon thousands of exquisitely designed machines at the molecular level. Information requires intelligence and design requires a designer.
Biochemists and mathematicians have calculated the odds against life arising from non-life naturally via unintelligent processes. The odds are astronomical. In fact, scientists aren’t even sure if life could have evolved naturally via unintelligent processes. If life did not arise by chance, how did it arise?
The universe is ordered by natural laws. Where did these laws come from and what purpose do they serve?
Philosophers agree that a transcendent Law Giver is the only plausible explanation for an objective moral standard. So, ask yourself if you believe in right and wrong and then ask yourself why. Who gave you your conscience? Why does it exist?
People of every race, creed, color, and culture, both men and women, young and old, wise and foolish, from the educated to the ignorant, claim to have personally experienced something of the supernatural. So what are we supposed to do with these prodigious accounts of divine healing, prophetic revelation, answered prayer, and other miraculous phenomena? Ignorance and imagination may have played a part to be sure, but is there something more?
YOU DECIDE. THINK ON IT A LITTLE
LikeLike
the big bang theory a large quantity of nothing decided to pack tightly together and, then, explode outward into hydrogen and helium. this gas is said to have flowed outward through frictionless space(“frictionless,”so the outflowing gas cannot stop or slow down) to eventually form stars, galaxies, planets and moons. it all sounds so simple just as if you would find in a science fiction novel. and that is all it is.
please combat both yours trully EiF.
LikeLike
LikeLike
Evolution could not do this
the mallee bird lives in the Australian desert. in May or june, with his claws the male makes a pit in the sand that is just the right size:about 3feet deep and 6 feet ling. then he fill is with vegetation. As it rots, it heat up. The bird waits patiently until it rains, which increase the heat to over 100F [38C]. at the bottom of the pile. The bird waits until it is down to 92F. When the right temperature is reached, he calls for his wife; they mate;she lays one egg a day for 30 days; and then leaves. The male then covers the eggs with sand, and continually checks the temperature with his amazing thetmometer bill for 7weeeks. he cannot let the temperature go up or down even on degree. If it cools at night he piles on more sand if it overheats in the day he pulls off sand at hatching time the chicks break their shells-and crawl up through as much as 2feet of sand! arriving at the top each one if fully able to fly and is on its own neither father or mother mallee bird give it any further attention or training when it grows up it does just as its parents did
very amazing huh “evolution could not do this”
LikeLike
by the way matt those web sites offered no! help on the question i asked erlier
LikeLike
Question to think about why dont we have more humanoid beings being brought up out of ponds lakes…etc if evolution is still in progress we should have organs fish animals comeing out of other things?
LikeLike
Evolution is simply an empty THEORY.
Evolution lacks any scientific proof
Evolutionists prove that getting a college education does not impart wisdom.
There is no scientific evidence that a species can change the number of chromosomes within the DNA. The chromosome count within each species is fixed. This is the reason a male from one species cannot mate successfully with a female of another species. Man could not evolve from a monkey. Each species is locked into its chromosome count that cannot change. If an animal developed an extra chromosome or lost a chromosome because of some deformity, it could not successfully mate. The defect could not be passed along to the next generation. Evolving a new species is scientifically impossible.
LikeLike
sorry about the delay of time but #1″I know it was probably a rhetorical question but sources I’ve found indicate he’s in the slammer until 2015 or so.”
sadly thats true for tax evasion
#2″Can you name a species that is not a transitional species, EiF?”
can i not i cant name you A animalia… etc of any kind that is evolving
#3 u know if we evolved from apes then why dont we still have tails ou know that tails would be allot more helpfull if we had them if we are evolving into better greater beings then why not also have tails
LikeLike
Are you a real Pharisee, or do you just play one on other people’s blogs?
Ed, what sort of Pharisee do you suppose would quote from the New Testament? I think you misremember religious history. Funny quip, though; I bet it gets chuckles from the high school kids.
I was, indeed, conniving (but not evilly) to trap you into a dilemma (let’s call it a ‘trilemma’).
I asked how the soul evolved.
A silly question, yes, but a fair question to put to an evolutionist that professes a belief in God. And a belief in God generally presupposes a belief in a soul.
Both of those connected beliefs are unscientific and unfalsifiable. Yes?
Either you 1) deny the existence of a soul (as your reference to that passage of Ecclesiastes seemed to imply); or 2) you have to assert some kind of theory for its evolution; or 3) you have to admit that at least some things just exist because God made them that way. Numbers 2 and 3 require you to admit that there is something about humans that transcends evolution and can’t be explained by science.
The second question, I admit, was a bit rude, but not out of left field. Some people find a curious comfort in denying the existence of God and their soul because they are loathe to contemplate their sinful nature and the judgement that may be awaiting them in the future. That’s probably the root of most atheism.
And the root of evolutionary theory, in large part, is a refutation of God.
You, however, are an interesting case. You say you are a Christian AND an evolutionist, which usually results in one of the anemic little brothers – intelligent design or theistic evolution – but you deny those as well, while referencing scripture to make your points!
Whew!
You are either woefully ignorant for your level of education (public school all the way, I’m guessing) or you are dishonest (you’re a lawyer, duh) and/or perhaps you are just an over-educated nutcase (distinct possibility).
So why don’t you clear this up. Explain how your belief in God (and your refutation of the Bible) and evolution (and your acceptance of the existence of the soul) coexist in your fevered mind. Is a straight answer too much to hope for?
You told the world about your prostate trouble. Now show us your balls.
LikeLike
Your use — or abuse — of Matthew 4 is an appropriate point of discussion here. Creationism sets up God for disproof, especially when it insists that it is science, which can be tested and disproven. If your claim is that God’s reputation must rest on a literal interpretation of an easily disproven text (when taken literally), you are testing God in exactly the way the Tempter was testing Jesus.
You throw yourself off the Temple top first. I’ll follow, if the results seem to merit following.
LikeLike
I’m neither ignorant nor evil, nor conniving evilly to try to trap others into such a false dilemma. Who said anything about souls evolving? Do you really think any part of Christianity would support such a claim? Where do souls come from? You can answer your own question, well within the bounds of Christianity, if you consider how humans get souls. Does every unfertilized egg in a woman have a soul? Does every sperm from a man have a soul?
What is your serious question? Are you a real Pharisee, or do you just play one on other people’s blogs?
LikeLike
A very clever comeback, ed!
However, your answer betrays either your ignorance or your dishonsty.
Earlier in this thread, you alluded to considering yourself a Christian. If this is truly so, then you are probably one of those postmodern, “liberal” or “emeging” Christians.
At any rate, you appear to be ignorant of the vast differences between the Old and New Covenants – a veritable paradigm shift, if you will – and the truly world-changing significance of Jesus Christ.
On the other hand, maybe you DO understand that, but are making a devious rhetorical argument.
I have dealt with another fellow who quotes scripture for dishonest purposes:
Matthew 4:1-11
So which are you Ed? Ignorant or evil?
Or just hoping that you don’t have a soul, as I asked before?
LikeLike
Who claimed souls evolved?
Read Ecclesiastes 3, especially verses 17-21.
LikeLike
How did the soul evolve?
Or do you not believe in a soul (hoping you don’t have one)?
LikeLike
I know it was probably a rhetorical question but sources I’ve found indicate he’s in the slammer until 2015 or so.
LikeLike
Hovind weaseled out of a debate with me a couple of years ago. He’s a charlatan, through and through.
Is he out of jail yet, by the way?
LikeLike
Every species is a “transitional” species, between its ancestors and its descendants.
What is it you really want to see?
If you want species in the transition stages whales went through, take a look at polar bears, some of whom spend 75% of their time in the water, with several key adaptations specific to marine animals, like nostrils that close, and webbed feet; then take a look at sea otters, which need to come out of the water only to breed, basically; then look at sea lions, seals and walruses, which have lost most of their hind legs, and are adapted primarily to swimming and diving, but which still must come out of the water to breed.
Can you name a species that is not a transitional species, EiF?
LikeLike
Obviously your reading comprehension skills are poor indeed. I worry for whatever educational institution you attend.
The links provided plenty of instances for transitional fossils, whether you could comprehend or not … well, that is your problem and not mine. And the Theory of Evolution predicts that there would be no clear transitional species that could be identified as such in the present day, simply because all species are constantly in the process of specification – evolution is still take place, it just takes places over such a long scale of time that it is very hard to see with a contemporary perspective.
As for Hovind, he has long since been discredited. His understanding of science has been demonstrated to be poor at best, while his research methods are truly laughable. No one trembles at his words, only the ignorant listen to his arguments and those who understand science merely sadly shake their heads at him. Even numerous large creationist groups have distanced themselves well away from the man, because they know he’s pretty much a complete loony.
I suggest you try considerably harder than that if you wish to bring forth any sort of credible evidence.
LikeLike
i think it is funny that in about the first post that matt did not show and avoided the question entirly about
“But seriously, since you apparently have a strong faith in evolution, maybe you can point me toward some evidence for evolution. There ought to be billions of transitional species, both living and dead (in the fossil record). May I see one?”
One things that annoys me more than repetition of long destroyed arguments and so-called evidence is the habit of creationists not to do even the most basic of research for themselves.
From talkorigins.org (a site which is well regarded for being properly referenced and based solely in science).
Examples of speciation which have been observed:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
Some reports on transitional fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
So, in summary, the evidence for Evolution happening is massive indeed. Whereas the evidence for creationism is … well, non-existent.
notice that he never answered that their are any transition species that you might be able and go to the zoo to look at
and just gave some false web cites that joe blow wrote up
LikeLike
ever here of Dr.ken hovind evolutionist tremble at the thought of him he is the creationist (my) best friend
i am willing to fight and cast down any opisition that you have against creation and i will win!
Yours truly
evolution is FALSE
your not so friendly combatint
LikeLike
Let me make this simple: Can you show us any part of the Constitution which authorizes the government saying, “This religious dogma is the dogma you should believe?” Or even, “This religious dogma should be considered as good as science, even though it can’t possibly withstand scientific testing?”
LikeLike
Anonymous asks: “Teaching creationism, evolution, or intelligent design ideas side-by-side isn’t even an ‘establishment of religion’ is it?”
Yes, teaching creationism (whether intelligent design or another variant) as though it were a viable scientific concept is an “establishment of religion”. Did you bother to read the court case material Ed was kind enough to provide? Judge Jones did an excellent job in Kitzmiller v. Dover. Don’t remain deliberately ignorant by ignoring the answers knowledgeable people provide.
Personally, I could see a pedagogical benefit in showing students how creationism is a religiously motivated pseudoscience that has no scientific merit, and expose the lies that creationists use to try to cast doubt on genuine science, but I figure with the limited time avialable in science class, it’s probably best to just give them a good foundation in the real science, so they’ll recognize the bogus claims of creationists as nonsense. When one is very familiar with the real thing, the counterfeits are easier to spot.
Let’s suppose you manage to trash the U.S. Constitution and get the law changed so you can push religion in science classes. Do the Jewish/Christian/Islam/Mormon variants of the Abrahmic creation myths get taught along with the Hindu creation myth? Do the Greco-Roman religious creation myths get equal billing? Does the Flying Spaghetti Monster creation myth get equal time? The Korean shaman creation myth? Which religion(s) do you intend to establish when thumbing your nose at the U.S. Constitution?
I have a revolutionary idea – let’s allow a consensus of scientists and scientifically literate science educators determine what gets taught in science class. I’d bet they insist that science class be used to teach science, and not religious mythology. That’s completely over the top, I know, but maybe it could work. Of course, that means that each religious group has to teach their creation myth in privately-supported religious centers voluntarily supported by adherents of the religion, instead of involving the government in a squabble over whose religious mythology gets taught in public schools.
Maybe Thomas Jefferson was onto a good idea with that “Wall of Separation” between church and state, when he composed a rough outline of the Bill of Rights, mailed it from his Ambassador post in France, and helped persuade his colleague and confidant James Madison into doing the heavy lifting of fleshing it out and getting it passed.
You’ve gotta love those Founders and their Enlightenment ideals!
LikeLike
The discussion of eye color in great apes reminded me of Snowflake at the Barcelona Zoo, who died a few years before I visited Barcelona. Snowflake had blue/grey eyes, as a consequence of his particular albinism. Here’s a picture from when he was young that shows his eyes a little better than most pics, followed by one late in his life:
LikeLike
Anonymous fails to cite her/his original source.
Anon, just cite your source, and clarify your vague claims (eyes, blood proteins, etc.) so I can track down the data to test your claims. If you already have accession numbers for GenBank, great, but if not, I at least need to know to what blood proteins you were referring. If you haven’t a clue, just say so, and just provide the link to your original source. If your source doesn’t have a clue, I’ll say so. I gather you’ve never heard of GenBank accession numbers before posting on this thread. No problem, it can be a learning experience for you, too, if you’re willing to learn.
Are you just parroting a creationist website that does the old “lift-and-spin”? Does it selectively lift research done by scientists who accept evolution, add a dismissive context, then conclude that evolution didn’t happen? That’s usually why creationists are afraid to provide their sources – if one can find enough information to get back to peer-reviewed scientific work that the creationists are misrepresenting, one learns that the scientists actually doing the work accept evolution and that evolution is substantiated by the data.
The link that anon DID provide regarding language didn’t substantiate her/his claim that “we have a language center in the brain (which primates do not have at all)”. Anonymous, for starters, you’re a primate, so if “we” have a language center in the brain, obviously at least SOME primates have it. And if you do some digging through the scientific literature, you’ll find that our closest non-human great ape cousins (chimps and gorillas) have the parts of the brain corresponding to the “language center”, as you put it: Broca’s and Wernicke’s areas. Here are some abstracts from the peer-reviewed scientific literature as examples:
Cantalupo C, Hopkins WD. “Asymmetric Broca’s area in great apes”. Nature. 2001 Nov 29;414(6863):505.
“Brodmann’s area 44 delineates part of Broca’s area within the inferior frontal gyrus of the human brain and is a critical region for speech production, being larger in the left hemisphere than in the right – an asymmetry that has been correlated with language dominance. Here we show that there is a similar asymmetry in this area, also with left-hemisphere dominance, in three great ape species (Pan troglodytes, Pan paniscus and Gorilla gorilla). Our findings suggest that the neuroanatomical substrates for left-hemisphere dominance in speech production were evident at least five million years ago and are not unique to hominid evolution.”
Gannon PJ, Holloway RL, Broadfield DC, Braun AR.
“Asymmetry of chimpanzee planum temporale: humanlike pattern of Wernicke’s brain language area homolog”. Science. 1998 Jan 9;279(5348):220-2.
“The anatomic pattern and left hemisphere size predominance of the planum temporale, a language area of the human brain, are also present in chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes). The left planum temporale was significantly larger in 94 percent (17 of 18) of chimpanzee brains examined. It is widely accepted that the planum temporale is a key component of Wernicke’s receptive language area, which is also implicated in human communication-related disorders such as schizophrenia and in normal variations such as musical talent. However, anatomic hemispheric asymmetry of this cerebrocortical site is clearly not unique to humans, as is currently thought. The evolutionary origin of human language may have been founded on this basal anatomic substrate, which was already lateralized to the left hemisphere in the common ancestor of chimpanzees and humans 8 million years ago.”
I’m not denying the differences. It’s just that the differences need to be explained. Most of your claims are so vague they don’t provide enough detail to test.
As for the rib differences, not all humans have the same number of ribs, so those particular changes aren’t any kind of barrier for evolution, if that is what you mean to imply.
As for number of vertebrae, normal chimps and humans generally have the same total of thoracic, lumbar and sacral vertebrae. (And it’s interesting to see where the vertebrae changes occurred in the transitional fossils in the human lineage). I think humans typically have one less caudal (“tail) vertebra than our chimp and gorilla cousins – no big deal. Now the number of cervical (“neck”) vertebrae seems to be much more crucial for mammals. I am aware of only 2 species of mammal that don’t normally have 7 cervical vertebrae, so it seems to be a feature much more highly conserved by Natural Selection among our mammal cousins. Even our mammalian cousins the whales and dolphins, which evolved from land-dwelling ancestors, have 7.
To what eye differences were you referring? Eye color? That the whites of the eyes are more exposed in the human face? If you know what you’re talking about, use your communications skills to convey it to us.
So far, for the differences and the similarities, all the data substantiate evolution.
LikeLike
Ediacaran,
I’m not going to search for information for you on all the differences between chimpanzees and humans. If you really didn’t know we were that different, then doing your own research would be a good exercise for you and might be quite a learning adventure.
On the language question, however, here’s a link to get you started:
http://www.brainconnection.com/topics/?main=fa/minds-animals3
On the constututional question, let’s look at the pertinent phrases:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion
And they don’t, do they, one way or the other? I guess we leave that up to lawyers and the courts….
Teaching creationism, evolution, or intelligent design ideas side-by-side isn’t even an ‘establishment of religion’ is it? But perhaps kids under 18 should not be exposed to controversy.
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
Unless the lawyers or judges disagree, right?
or abridging the freedom of speech
Unless somebody is saying something the lawyers don’t like.
Who runs the country these days anyway, ‘the people’ or the lawyers and politicians?
You want to change something, start there.
LikeLike
Ed, thanks for already answering the Constitution question.
For a timely reminder for those of us in the United States of America:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
LikeLike
anonymous writes: “Yes, humans and chimps ’share’ about 98% of their DNA, but of course that 2% covers a bit more than what you say above. Our eyes are quite different, we have a language center in the brain (which primates do not have at all), our feet are very different, with a totally different ankle hinge, a differently shaped pelvis, different number of vertabrae , two more ribs in a chimp, restructured inner ear bones, quite different blood proteins, an more as you know, but beyond these little details we are almost brothers …”
Please elaborate on your claims. What characteristics are “quite different” in chimp v. human eyes? Most of what I’ve studied are quite similar, so I’m curious as to the specific differences you can cite. I know of a few characteristics that are different, but have little effect on function. While the morphological differences are of interest to me, I’m more familiar with the genetic & protein sequence data, so please cite the particular blood proteins that you characterize as “quite different”. If you will post the GenBank accession numbers for the proteins, so much the better. If you don’t have those, at least provide enough information so I can track down the sequences at GenBank.
Please cite your sources for all the claims you made (preferably scientific sources from peer-reviewed journals). I am genuinely curious.
Too, I’d really be interested to hear how the chimp Washoe and the gorilla Koko communicated with humans in sign language – especially without “a language center in the brain (which primates do not have at all)”, according to your post.
LikeLike
Standards are different for colleges, partly because kids over the age of 18 are considered adults under the law, and not liable to have their religion swayed by errant teaching.
LikeLike
The part of the constitution which makes it illegal to teach religion as religion in schools?
First, check Articles I, II, and III. In none of those articles is any branch of the federal government delegated the power to select religion for citizens. Then check Article IV. States don’t have that power, either. (If you check your state constitution, you’ll find it also outlaws teaching religion.)
Then take a look at Amendment I. It enumerates rights of citizens which are left unenumerated previously. In addition to the lack of delegation of power to any branch of government with anything to do with religion, Amendment I closes the back door by saying that Congress may not even entertain a law to get around the structure.
Teaching ABOUT religion is not illegal. But the request here is to teach religion as science. To do it legally, you’d need to do what the AP biology books do: “Here’s why creationism is not science, is inaccurate, and will not be tested . . .”
Creationism is religious dogma. To teach it as science, as an “alternative” idea to evolution, is an establishment of that religion.
And so, courts for more than 40 years have ruled it a violation of the Constitution.
Check above; I cited the cases, and linked to them, for anony-Ma.
Ed
LikeLike
Our local college offers a course in spirit channeling and contacting your personal angels. Legal? Also a course in zen buddhism meditation. Not religion?
LikeLike
Ed writes: “What’s the great gap between chimps and humans? A gene here gives humans greater swelling in the frontal lobes where a couple of new thinking processes can occur; another gene gives humans a workable voice box; another fluke mutation causes a lack of hair (is that an advantage? perhaps, in a world where diseases are carried by lice that hide in fur).
Yes, humans and chimps ‘share’ about 98% of their DNA, but of course that 2% covers a bit more than what you say above. Our eyes are quite different, we have a language center in the brain (which primates do not have at all), our feet are very different, with a totally different ankle hinge, a differently shaped pelvis, different number of vertabrae , two more ribs in a chimp, restructured inner ear bones, quite different blood proteins, an more as you know, but beyond these little details we are almost brothers …
Ediacaran – Can you please quote the part of the Constitution that makes creationism illegal? We all know the part about ‘establishment of a religion’, but I’d like to see the part that makes teaching something religion-related illegal. Even better, please link to the pertinent legal codes. We have all seen the court cases, but the fight ain’t over… Show us the basis of your claim that it’s illegal.
LikeLike
In response to Anony-Ma’s posts regarding a charter school in Arizona teaching creationism (“Intelligent Design” creationism and variants) alongside evolution, it sounds like such activity is illegal, if the following report is correct: Charter schools spark controversy in Arizona, D.C.
Anony-Ma, if you’re still around, to what charter school were you referring?
You need to recommend to your school board to stick to evolution in science class. And the same goes for the charter school, unless they want to face an expensive lawsuit for violating the U.S. Constitution, if they are publicly funded as the article states. They will have a tough time competing after they pay a hefty fine. Have both schools review the Dover, Pennsylvania, case Kitzmiller v. Dover.
Stick to science in science class. Evolution is science. Creationism is not science.
LikeLike
Egads, the irony!
Unless he/she is joking, “anonymous” refers to alleged “classic evolutionary hoaxes” and posts creationist links to websites that tout: “mantracks” alongside dino tracks near the Paluxy River in Glen Rose, Texas; regurgitations of variants of creationist John Corrigan “Jonathan” Wells’ distortions; the claim that Neanderthals were just humans suffering from rickets and arthritis, and many other hilarious classic creationist hoaxes.
Clearly “anonymous” fell for the creationist stinky bait – hook, line and sinker. Muslim creationist Adnan Oktar (a.k.a. Harun Yahya) would be pleased. Do creationists. anonymous or otherwise, have any remorse about their rampant bearing of false witness?
I don’t intend to devote too much time to these long-refuted creationist claims, so if anyone’s interested, here a few rebuttals from TalkOrigins’ Index to Creationist Claims:
CC101. Human footprints have been found with dinosaur tracks at Paluxy.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC101.html
CC214.1. Archaeopteryx was probably not an ancestor of modern birds.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1.html
CC214.1.1. Archaeopteryx is fully bird
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC214_1_1.html
CC051. Neanderthal was based on a disfigured human.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051.html
CC051.1. Neanderthals were humans with rickets.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC051_1.html
LikeLike
These are the links promised in my previous post in this thread.
Vitamin C pseudogene info:
The ENSI (Evolution and the Nature of Science Institutes) lesson plan website is at:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/evol.fs.html
The main page for the Vitamin C pseudogene lesson plan is at:
http://www.indiana.edu/~ensiweb/lessons/psa.ball.html
CMP-sialic acid hydroxylase deletion mutation info:
Original paper on the 92 base pair deletion mutation, “A mutation in human CMP-sialic acid hydroxylase occurred after the Homo-Pan divergence” by Hsun-Hua Chou, Hiromu Takematsu, Sandra Diaz, Jane Iber, Elizabeth Nickerson, Kerry L. Wright, Elaine A. Muchmore, David L. Nelson, Stephen T. Warren, and Ajit Varki:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/95/20/11751
A 2007 review by Varki, A. and Nelson, D.: Genomic Differences between Humans and Chimpanzees (Invited Review). Annu. Rev. Anthropol., 36:191-209, 2007.
Click to access B109.pdf
A 2002 review in Nature co-authored by Varki that covers some differences between chimps and humans:
Click to access Olson&Varki_2003.pdf
An old (1998) overview by Ann Gibbons accessible to laypersons regarding differences between humans and the other great apes:
http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Gibbons_98.html
LikeLike
Hold on, Ed. I suspect your commenters would lean towards duped church MEN than women. Harvard also produced Barry Fell who insisted that North American native peoples were actually Hittites and Egyptians. [You can always tell a Harvard man…]
One thing about Piltdown– it was not a good hoax. It was easily disproven by careful science (by a New Zealander, based on tooth shape but it was difficult to get the word around then) and later also by good science. For one example, the hypothesis that the pieces of bone all came from the same individual and therefore would all be the same age was disproven. Intelligent Design would have no way to test whether Piltdown was legitimate or not.
LikeLike