Slashdot Mirror

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.

1. Radioactive dating (using isotopes with long half lives) is used to date layers, among othe methods. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
2. Standard geological processes of uplift and folding are adequate to account for this - he's really overstating the case. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
3. Again this is overstating the case - there's no evidence for Hovind's claims, and plenty of explanations for "vertical" fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked. Creationists also try to claim prostrate (horizontal) trees are evidence against standard geological theory.
   
   If hat's not enough, here is a detailed debunking of all of Hovind's geological strata argments, referring specifically to him
   
   
4. The entire Grand Canyon area was uplifted later. There is plenty of geological evidence for this.
5. Is dependent on the prior claim which doesn't hold up, so is now moot.
6. The characterictics of the Canyon are in no way reconcilable with such a violent and rapid cutting of the rock (all those slow meanders)
   
   All of these grand canyon arguments are standard creationist myths and have been well debunked.
   
   
7. As was already discussed, the age of layers is generally not determined by fossils. This is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
8. Any change in information via random noise is obviously new information. I can't imagine how he argued any such thing. Besides this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked, in different variations
9. Selection doesn't create new designs and new information, mutation does. Selection simply selects which new designs are successful and useful (for the current environment). Since you are repeating the argument I'll repeat the debunking of it
10. Except speciation has been observed, many many times, so clearly this is simply false. Once again this is a standard creationist myth that is well debunked
11. Given that his premises are demonstrably false, clearly that conclusion will not follow
12. Attacking the messenger means little when there is so much evidence for the message itself. Argumentum ad hominem.
13. 
    
    Jedidiah.

There is overwhelming evidence for common descent (macroevolution).

>This is a straw man argument. Nobody is claiming you can use radiocarbon dating on anything but recent fossils. Geological layers are dated by a variety of means, including radiological dating of isotopes much longer-lived than carbon-14.

Can you (or anyone) provide a couple of examples of a fossil that was dated by any other means than its position in a geological layers? The creation web sites state a couple of quotes from secular sources stating that other dating methods are not generally used creationscience.
Evolution sites claim they are talkorgins but no examples are presented.

Evolution attempts to claim that life is basically a collection of dead material that can change through random mutation and natural selection.

Yet, one the basic characteristic that differentiates living matter from dead matter are of a thermodynamic nature. These thermodynamic characteristics cannot be explained if one considers life to be the sum of its parts. But evolutionists will claim that they can explain the thermodynamics of entire ecosystems.

There are no mechanisms by which symbolic information can arise through physical processes.

Did you know that the theoy of evolution has been proven to be wrong in a whole bunch of ways? I'll just name two. First, it predicted a lot of transitionary species. Darwin himself was aware that there was a scarcity of transitionary species and he predicted that in the future more and more of those transitionary species would be found. But today, we have even fewer examples of transitionary species than in his time because many examples of that period, such as the evolution of the horse, have been proven wrong.

Evolution attempts to claim that life is basically a collection of dead material that can change through random mutation and natural selection.

Yet, one the basic characteristic that differentiates living matter from dead matter are of a thermodynamic nature. These thermodynamic characteristics cannot be explained if one considers life to be the sum of its parts. But evolutionists will claim that they can explain the thermodynamics of entire ecosystems.

There are no mechanisms by which symbolic information can arise through physical processes.

Did you know that the theoy of evolution has been proven to be wrong in a whole bunch of ways? I'll just name two. First, it predicted a lot of transitionary species. Darwin himself was aware that there was a scarcity of transitionary species and he predicted that in the future more and more of those transitionary species would be found. But today, we have even fewer examples of transitionary species than in his time because many examples of that period, such as the evolution of the horse, have been proven wrong.

They'll point out scornfully that you now have TWO missing links where previously you jst had the one.

Just the one? I counted at least a dozen.

Don't worry, Biblical literalists - the creationists are all positive that every one of those skulls is either an ape or a man, and none is an ape-man. They seem to have a little trouble agreeing on which is which, but that's surely not relevant to the problem.

They'll point out scornfully that you now have TWO missing links where previously you jst had the one.

Just the one? I counted at least a dozen.

Don't worry, Biblical literalists - the creationists are all positive that every one of those skulls is either an ape or a man, and none is an ape-man. They seem to have a little trouble agreeing on which is which, but that's surely not relevant to the problem.

It's the OP that is in error, not TFA. There is a big difference between the missing link and a missing link. The former is a 19th century semi-religious concept that has no scientific value. The article however uses the latter phrase, which just means that we had no knowledge of the species that was intermediary between homo erectus and homo sapiens, and now we do, which is scientifically interesting.

Also, see this:
Human - apes, transitional forms

Because your Sunday pastor tells you that "leading evolutionists no longer claim that evolution was a slow graduate change" does not make it true.

Here are a few thousand examples of transitional fossils: Talkorigin's Transitional Vertebrate FAQ

Now go and punch your pastor in the nose for passing something off as true that he didn't have any evidence for. I will refrain from doing the same to you because this is the internet.

And only because this is the internet, dumbass.

Cue evolution vs. creationism debate in 5... 4... 3... 2...

Seriously, I almost dread stories like this for a couple of reasons:

- Talking about "missing links" puts the idea in creationists' minds that the evolution from apes to man took place in discrete steps, and that the fact that such "missing links" exist is proof that the Theory of Evolution is still just a hunch unsupported by proof. The fact is that the evolution from apes to man is a continuum, and there are a lot of fossils from lots of time periods along that continuum.

- Because this discovery is relatively recent, there's a chance that it still may turn out to be something other than what this article purports it to be. The real research is just starting. If it turns out that it's for real, it will be valuable insight into our species's evolution, though creationists will still refuse to believe it. If it turns out to not be an intermediary between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens, the creationists will accuse the scientists of everything from fabricating evidence to trying to pull a hoax as part of some weird conspiracy. The irony is that if it is discovered that this fossil is not the intermediary that it is suspected to be, it is scientists who will determine that, and unlike creationists who have a nasty habit of wanting to dismiss or even repress evidence, those scientists will let us know as soon as they find any inconsistencies, and the data will be there in the open for us to evaulate and form our own opinions.

I still say that this is the true test for whether a creationist can actually be open-minded or not. Ask them this one question:

What piece or pieces of evidence will it take to convince you that the Theory of Evolution is, in fact, true and that creationism is not?

If the answer is "None," as it is with almost every creationist I've ever met, then don't bother wasting your time arguing with them. Nothing you say will ever convince them, as they have deliberately closed themselves off to any kind of rational conclusion based on reality instead of blind faith.

The nice thing about the question is that it's not a double standard. There are several things that would convince me that creationism is true and not evolution. The most obvious would be if God came and spoke to me in a burning bush. I know that sounds facetious, but it's really not; that really would do it. Or, if compelling scientific evidence were to arise that evolution is a crock, such as discovery of a natural chimera skeleton. These are just a couple of examples, I'm sure there are many more.

I'm always amused at creationists who think that scientists are in some kind of dark conspiracy to push "the agenda" of evolution. What they don't realize is that if a scientist could discover some piece of incontrovertible proof that the Theory of Evolution is all just a bunch of hooey, he would undoubtedly be one of the most famous people in the world, winning all sorts of Nobel Prizes and recognition in his field. Proving the Theory of Evolution wrong would be one of the greatest, not notorious, scientific finds ever, on the level of Michaelson-Morley experiment that proved that there is no aether and set the stage for Einstein's Theory of Relativity, and you'd better believe that any decent scientists would kill to disprove the Theory of Evolution.

The evidence for a big bang (a horrible name)...

Other radioisotopes are often used for dating fossils, along with location in the strata etc.

E.g.: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html

It's most definitely not breaking news. I've no idea how educated you are, but if you'd read any decent undergraduate level biology text from the last thirty years, or even any of the popularisations by Gould, Dawkins, etc then you would know about this. If you haven't read any of this, then why on earth do you think you're in a position to comment on evolution?

If you are genuinely interested, the FAQ at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section1.h tml#pred4 is a great introduction, although the primary literature is pretty accessible too.

Says he. Almost every other biologist accepts evolution, because they don't see irreducable complexity in the world. IC is a moving target for these people, and that ought to worry anyone who proposes this hypothesis. The blood clotting cascade was promoted as such an example, and you couldn't get it in a simpler form than that which humans have it. However a simpler blood clotting cascade was found in dolphins, minus the latest evolutionary kick that we got.

So scratch that one off the list. We could say that anything we don't understand/can't explain right now is IC, but that's not a very powerful model of the world, and doesn't really help us at all. If something is classified as IC do we no longer investigate it? ("oh that's too tricky, it must be IC therefore god did it"). But we've already seen it fail on the blood clotting system.

Do we deny research money for things someone deems to be IC? IC stagnates research for no benefit. Its origin is clearly from the creationist realms - notice that there are just a handful of biologists (such as Behe (anyone other biologist?)) who are promoting it.

Steven Meyer (who you wrote the article you referenced) says...

This creates a problem for the Darwinian mechanism. Natural selection preserves or "selects" functional advantages as they arise by random mutation. Yet the flagellar motor does not function unless all its 30 parts are present. Thus, natural selection can "select" the motor once it has arisen as a functioning whole, but it cannot produce the motor in a step-by-step Darwinian fashion.

Biologists have found uses for the stripped down components that form the flagellum (i.e. a mousetrap with one less part that does something). Even a cursory search from me (a non biologist) found a link at http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB200_1.html . Meyers knows this yet presumably pretends not to.

Observed speciation? Here are some examples. Here is a more detailed account of more examples. Oh, and here are yet more examples. All of it well documented and referenced. Argument by ignorance is not really effective.

Jedidiah.

Observed speciation? Here are some examples. Here is a more detailed account of more examples. Oh, and here are yet more examples. All of it well documented and referenced. Argument by ignorance is not really effective.

Jedidiah.

Observed speciation? Here are some examples. Here is a more detailed account of more examples. Oh, and here are yet more examples. All of it well documented and referenced. Argument by ignorance is not really effective.

Jedidiah.

Well, you see, that's the problem. For the most part, the age of geologic layers are defined by the fossils we find in them- and then we turn around and claim the age that the fossils are by the geologic layer we found them in. That's a circular definition right there.

Well, it would be. If it were true. Unfortunately it's not.

For the most part dating of strata is determined by which layers are on top of which, and more recently confirmed via radioactive dating methods. It's worth noting that dating of geologic strata notably predates the theory of evolution.

Jedidiah.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind.html please read that before you back up that silly claim

However, there is nothing that would have prevented life from arising at multiple times some groups of organisms have different ancestors. There are any number of reasons why we don't see multiple lineages of life.

First, the conditions under which life originated may not exist now. This isn't as far-fetched as it seems, since evidence suggests that conditions on the earth prior to the presence of life were dramatically different.

Second, let's suppose that the conditions aren't so different and life has formed many times. The newly formed organisms would have to compete against organisms that have already adapted to the same environment. Already existing organisms are going to have a big advantage.

Third, there may already have been multiple different lineages of life. However, the other lineages were out-competed and didn't survive to the present day.

No. Please show your evidence for that claim. It's ok... I'll wait.... No? Thought so...

Perhaps you meant this or maybe even this? If so, read it again... slowly, carefully. Look up words you don't understand. And learn about how significant scientific discoveries are distorted by creationist looneys.

No. Please show your evidence for that claim. It's ok... I'll wait.... No? Thought so...

Perhaps you meant this or maybe even this? If so, read it again... slowly, carefully. Look up words you don't understand. And learn about how significant scientific discoveries are distorted by creationist looneys.

"Yes I would say life from that period would be different to a degree. It seems like there was simple life forms than boom a bunch of different ones."

Which were, at least compared to modern life, still pretty simple, and still obviously quite related to each other. And keep in mind that the "boom" took place spread out over the course of 30 million years: pretty fast in terms of evolutionary pace, but no small potatoes either.

"There's going to be change over time but such a radical event seems like it would either seriously change evolutionary theory or dump it for a new one."

Evolution did change to some extent: things like the Cambrian Explosion did away with a view which was known as phyletic gradualism, which was the idea that the amount of morphological change in all living things was constant. In contrast to that, most biolgoists today think that changes are more stuttery: populations remain fairly stable for longer periods of time after they reach equilibrium, and then burst out and change a lot faster when the environment changes and they have to adapt.

Genetics also seems to confirm this, in that most of the genetic code is unexpressed: mutational change to it don't actually affect anything, so bigger changes tend to come in clumps rather than at a steady rate. Likewise, studies in populations today show that creatures are actually capable of changing many many many time FASTER than what we see in the fossil record: faster even, in fact, than anything seen in the Cambrian explosion. That means that a lot of what natural selection does is not speeding up change, but rather slowing it down.

"What source are you using that humans came from eukaryotes and opisthokonts?"

Well, all of our cells are eukaryotic. And our reproductive cells are always obvious opisthokonts, as opposed to using cillia or some other means of propulsion found elsewhere in life. As for how we know that we are descended from...

"I'm finding lots of for and against on this subject. I guess I'm looking for the smoking gun, which isn't going to happen."

Well that link I posted before is a good start(the main page is just the start of things: the real meat is in the taxonomic class-by-class discussion of our ancestry:
http://home.comcast.net/~aronra/Clades.htm#An%20or ganism%20is%20any%20organic%20(Carbon-based)%20RNA /DNA%20protien%20which%20replicates%20&%20reproduc es.

The talk.origins common descent FAQ is also a really great start:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

"and I dont think any species has literally turned into another in 'real time'"

Of course they have. The biological species concept requires only reproductive incompatibility to arise to separate one species from another. This has been observed to happen countless times in multicellular life within human lifetimes.

"Also if we really understand these genetic mechanisms so well, then how come there is no proof of macro evolution, no simulation that seems to prove it, etc.. and dont use circular reaasoning."

Not only is there proof of macroevolution, but it's regarded as an almost blase fact by biologists. I have no idea what you mean by "no similation seems to prove it" or "there is no proof." That's ridiculous.

Start here:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

Speciation has happened and being observed many times in plants and animals in our lifetimes

A big list of documented and academic articles here, start at section 5.0 - Instances of Observered Speciation
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.htm l

"But in terms of DNA changes are really very minor, only selecting a different combination of attributes from an existing set."

Which random mutation is constantly increasing, as well as adding greater capacity to...

Do you know what tetrachromatism is? It's four-sample color vision, allowing those that have it to make out much finer shades of color as well as see into part of the UV spectrum. It has arisen recently, and currently only in women. How about ultra-dense, apparently unbreakable bones right out of a Bruce Willis movie? A family in Connecticut. Or immunity to LDH cholesterol? A mutation traced back to a guy in the 1700s.

My point is that even in just very recent just human history, there are countless examples of quite radical new traits, not to mention tons of small drifts in one direction or another. And great apes are among the very _slowest_ in evolutionary change.

"In defence of evolution, this kind of example is the only kind that is ever offered."

This is often because it's the simplest to explain. We, for instance, know exactly how the speciation of abalones works, down to the gene by gene changes. But it would take me a long long time to explain, even assuming that you already have a background in genetics. And that's just one tiny example among countless, and that's one THE simplest speciations to explain. AND that's just the start of discussing the issue!

If you'd like, though, this is always a great place to start: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

What sort of evidence would YOU like to hear about?

"We have not seen dinosaurs grow wings or feathers" We have not witnessed the event occurring, but then I also did not see your mother give birth to you although the evidence says that she did. i.e. Past events can be inferred from existing clues. Otherwise forensics would be a fraud yes? Also it is populations that evolve - not individuals.. As to your particular example, what is wrong with Archaeopteryx as exactly a dinosaur with wings and feathers? There have been 10 fossilised examples of this transitional form discovered. You can see some more about this at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info .html Incidentally, here is another link you may find interesting to read (if you are really that interested that is - no shame if you have better things to worry about) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ :-)

"We have not seen dinosaurs grow wings or feathers" We have not witnessed the event occurring, but then I also did not see your mother give birth to you although the evidence says that she did. i.e. Past events can be inferred from existing clues. Otherwise forensics would be a fraud yes? Also it is populations that evolve - not individuals.. As to your particular example, what is wrong with Archaeopteryx as exactly a dinosaur with wings and feathers? There have been 10 fossilised examples of this transitional form discovered. You can see some more about this at: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info .html Incidentally, here is another link you may find interesting to read (if you are really that interested that is - no shame if you have better things to worry about) http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/ :-)

You know, I was mid-way through a nice, thoughtful post, when I realized holy crap! This guy actually thinks the second law of thermodynamics disproves evolution! I could point out why this is bogus myself or provide you with links, but what's the point? You obviously didn't bother to read the first link I posted and so probably won't bother reading a second. So instead I'll just leave with a challenge: read that link. You've nothing to lose but a little time.

It is illogical to conclude anything about religion or spirituality from evolution. You say the soul is superfluous. As far as evolution and the rest of science is concerned, so is art, literature, philosophy, politics, friendship, and all the other illogical things we do that have no survival value, but which lend value to survival.

As for chemical evolution, this makes no sense as most chemicals do not reproduce, do not have heritable traits, and do not mutate. Hydrogen is the most abundant substance in the universe (leaving dark matter and energy aside for a moment). So, it should be the most "fit" according to chemical evolution, but this is nonsense. Those atoms form spontaneously from the union of protons and electrons and are not subject to population dynamics of living organisms. Biology is not merely complicated chemistry. Abiogenetic researchers seek those chemicals which could have been the first to act like life and the processes that gave rise to those chemicals. In effect, these researchers are examining the border between chemistry and biology.

There is plenty of stuff on the web, but to get you started, here are some things to get you thinking about how abiogenesis may have occurred, or at least suggest the workings of some steps along the way.

1) In 1953, Stanley Miller, working under Harold Urey, showed that amino acids are able to form spontaneously in the conditions which may have existed in earth's primordial atmosphere. In three months, his experiment produced at least 7 amino acids, which included 3 of the 20 found in modern (and probably ancient) organisms. (Amino acids are the 'building blocks' of all proteins).

2) Certain lipid molecules, including phospholipids (the main type of molecule that makes up cell membranes), will spontaneously form a number of structures when placed in water, eg "micelles" and "bi-layers".

Micelles are tiny spherical structures made of relatively few molecules, and can 'carry' other molecules inside them, although I'm am not aware of the significance of this.

Bi-layers are often much larger structures capable of forming large sheets, or "membranes" which can be quite bendy and stretchy. They can even bend around on themselves to form massive. spherical "containers" which separate their contents from the outside world and thus allows the contents to become significantly chemically different. This is exactly the structure used by all living cells to contain the vast array of chemical reactions that need to be carried out under special chemical conditions.

The significance of spontaneous organisation of certain lipids is that it is thermodynamically favourable for these structures to occur and therefore plausible that they played an important part in containing the first biochemical interactions that occurred during abiogenesis.

3) It has also been suggested that certain clay substrates may have formed a biochemical "staging ground" for collecting and organising biologically significant molecules. I remember reading (possibly in a Richard Dawkins book) about one theory which suggested the idea that the clay substrates themselves could have been self-reproducing. The premise of this particular theory is that imperfections in some crystal structures are often repeated throughout the crystal as it grows. Therefore crystal structures with certain imperfections may have encouraged more of themselves to exist. Furthermore, the theory says, if particular "self-replicating" crystal structures gave rise to large scale properties that further encouraged the production of these crystals, then they would become even more prolific. For example, if a certain "self-replicating" crystal was usually generated in still water, but also had the property that, when washed into slow-moving water, sediments of the crystal caused that slow-moving water to "dam up", then the water would become still again, thus creating an environment suitable for creating more of the crystal.

Far-fetched? Perhaps, But I am always wary of criticising a theory simply because of my own incredulity.

Anyway. The upshot is that we are a number of theories of abiogenesis out there, none of them at all complete. I guess that any theories will remain speculative until we are able to satisfactorily string together a series of observeda and reproducible reactions and interactions that would be able to explain abiogenesis.

Am I afraid that I might find the truth to be quite different from what I currently believe?

What keeps most people from following that link is the abundance of pseudo-science that will spew forth onto the page. Even your short post reeks of the type of - clever, but dishonest - "feel good," but fallacious - half-baked arguments that I have found in every pro-creationist website that I have visited, including the aforementioned.

anyone asserting the truth about the origin of the universe is exercising a belief

Not all beliefs are equal. The belief that the flying spaghetti monster created all species is different than the belief that evolution is responsible for speciation. The second is the result of the theory of evolution, a model which has time and time again provided excellent predictions and is supported by decades of very strong evidence (see Talk Origins). The same cannot be said for the first, which is supported by just as much as creationism is, minus an old book with no scientific authority. So you have your link, I have my link. That makes them equally authoriative, right? The crucial different is that my link documents scientific facts that have undergone peer review and have been accepted by the scientific community. The information on your link serves to justify religious beleifs, and in doing so, dishonestly distorts (or ignores) the body of knowledge accepted by the scientific community. And as tempting as it may be, don't begin with the "evolution is just as much a religion", "scientists fear punishment if they promote creation", or "scientists are just out to prove Darwin right, regardless of the truth" fallacious detours that always getted tossed up in desperation. Those same myths get stomped in every slashdot thread that mentions the word evolution, please don't waste our time by going through the same empty motions.

Toe to toe, fact to fact, the persuasive yet unsupported arguments of creationists crumbles under the weight of objective, verifiable facts in support of evolution. Your efforts to manufacture a "controversy" on the subject is understandable, as it is the best way for creationism to gain legitimacy for the scientifically-ignorant masses. Nonetheless, you don't do yourself any favors by buying into your own hype: it only makes you appear ignorant of science (see your abuse of the word "theory"). You really, really want to beleive that creationism is true despite the fact that it has no scientific basis. That's fine. Just please don't project the inadequacies of your beliefs onto others, who put the rational advancement of knowledge over the irrational justification of personal beliefs.

This I cannot do as there are no theories of abiogenesis (life from non-life) at the moment. The origin of life is a very open question, with lots of hypotheses being thrown around. From what I read in popular science magazines, experiments to test various ideas are only a decade or two away and biologists seem optimistic, though I can't be sure as I am a physicist.

This is as good a source as I can come up with at the moment.

Two rebuttals:

bacterial flagellum

blood clotting

However, rebutting each claim of irreducible complexity is rather pointless since irreducible complexity can arise from evolution!

Two rebuttals:

bacterial flagellum

blood clotting

However, rebutting each claim of irreducible complexity is rather pointless since irreducible complexity can arise from evolution!

Two rebuttals:

bacterial flagellum

blood clotting

However, rebutting each claim of irreducible complexity is rather pointless since irreducible complexity can arise from evolution!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/evolphil.html

Perhaps you can confess that your irrational belief is in fact wrong, and that you are in fact against science.

I hate to have to correct people on this, but "macroevolution" IS a meaningful term in biology. It certainly isn't what creationists think it means (i.e. a boundary between observable evolution and not, or between complex changes and simple trait selection), but it does refer to useful concepts about how large scale patterns of speciation work over time. For instance, extinction events that kill thousands of species at once are considered macroevolutionary. So are long term patterns of genetic drift. So is the question of whether evolutionary change is steady or punctuated (to be fair, many think that this was a bit of a straw man debate, with Gould attacking a position almost no one actually held). So is the discussion over whether complexity is a trend or not.

Here's talk origins:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.htm l
You're right that the basic underlying churning of processes isn't any different. But don't get goaded into thinking that there is no useful distinction. Genetic change within a breeding population tends to combine, mix, and spread, while once speciation has occured, there is no longer any necessary mechanism for convergence.

Members of the jury, you cannot convict my client of murder. Not one of you was there to witness the alleged event, and the prosecution has perversely refused to revive Mr. Body and restore him and my client to conditions identical to those of the day in question, and reproduce the alleged murder for the benefit of your observation. Sure there are eye witness accounts, but those are notoriously unreliable. The video of my client allegedly murdering Mr. Body could have been fabricated. My client's blood that was found on the scene of the crime could have been planted there, and my client's torn and bloody clothing with Mr. Body's blood on it could similarly been part of an elaborate frame-up. Ditto for the knife with my client's fingerprints. My client's violent tendencies and record of death threats to Mr. Body are mere circumstantial evidence. The fact of the matter is that until the prosecution invents a time machine to take us back to the day of the murder so we can see these alleged events unfold ourselves, it cannot be said without a doubt that my client murdered that man.

What you wouldn't demand of that prosecutor is what you're demanding evolutionary biology to do. Actually, it's even worse: E. coli is not the progenitor of the Mycobacterium genus or vice versa--they share a common ancestor that existed many millions of years ago. Even if we knew the precise DNA sequence of this organism, it would be impossible to replicate the exact series of events that resulted in E. coli and Mycobacteria. To do that, we would not only need the exact morphological and genetic makeup of the progenitor bacteria, we also have to know all the details of that population's environment, exact selective pressures, genetic drift, random mutations and their exact order of all of these events, what other bacteria were present for any horizontal gene transfer, etc. We don't have a time machine. It is impossible to do what you're demanding without knowing these details. So the phrase "may have arisen" is not a problem at all--it represents our present state of knowledge based on the evidence from the known characteristics of bacteria and how they are interrelated and our understanding of evolutionionary mechanisms. What we can do is test different parts of evolutionary theory on specific systems, and Pubmed lists thousands of papers dealing with such.

Regarding the rest of your post, well, there's some mistaken assumptions about what evolution is. First off, populations evolve, not individuals, and saying a population has an urge to evolve is a little peculiar. Second, evolution is not a ladder with bacteria on the bottom and us on top. Evolution's more like a bush, with modern species at the tips of the branches. We've observed speciation happening in the wild and in the lab, including multiple fruit fly speciations. We also would never expect the result of fruit fly speciation to be anything other than something similar. Dogs giving birth to kittens is a creationist strawman--if you want to call that your "genetic barrier" be my guest. We've only just recently begun to have insight as to how different or more complex body plans may have arisen. Our limited understanding of how this occurs of course in no way invalidates that evolution occured--we have ample evidence from the fossil record and other sources. We are also beginning to understand the genetic and biochemical mechanisms responsible for body plan, such as some insight as to how an organism develops radial or bilateral symmetry, or none at all, how segmentation occurs, how limbs form during development. Now is a very exciting time to be a biologist!

Dinosaur skeletons can be classified as bird-hipped or lizard hipped. We also have exmaples of bird-hipped and bird footed. Why then do the 'experts' claim without a hint of sarcasm that birds evolved from the lizard-hipped variety (like t-rex)?

Also, if these remains show a feathered crest, and are so much OLDER than the dinosaurs which LATER evolved into birds, then does that mean I can be born before my grandparents?

Has anyone else heard of circular reasoning? It goes like this: "The fossils are very old because they were found in very old rocks. We know the rocks are very old because they had fossils in them!"

It's about time science made the theory fit the evidence, instead of trying to force the evidence in the theory. Science was SUPPOSED to be about finding a theory which could explain the observable facts. Too often now it's about making sure that only observations which are interpreted according to the most popular theory are allowed to be published.

Questioning a theory is apparently forbidden by those who point the finger at religion for being fanatical.

Since, like so many people who spew outrageous claims, you've provided absolutely no evidence to support your claim, it's not to hard to one-up you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html

As for flash-frozen flowers:

http://www.duleepa.com/index.php?page=ViewPhoto&ph otoID=1326&pn=

Since, like so many people who spew outrageous claims, you've provided absolutely no evidence to support your claim, it's not to hard to one-up you:

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC361_2.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mammoths.html

As for flash-frozen flowers:

http://www.duleepa.com/index.php?page=ViewPhoto&ph otoID=1326&pn=

"In the evolutionary theory debates, the battle between the gradual change camp and the punctuated equilibrium camp has been going on for a long long time. As an antro major, we discussed both ideas in class, but really never talked about 'what if it's both'."

Gould and Eldredge explicitly stated that punctuated equilibrium and gradualism are not mutually exclusive. It's actually a little bit funnier than that. When Gould and Eldredge came out with punctuated equilibrium, those that they pegged as gradualists felt like they had been caricatured as slavishly holding to uniformitarianism and disallowing any role to great environmental change. Punk Eek is however a great way of describing things. Read more about it at talk.origins.