Slashdot Mirror

The question that you are getting at, how life started, is called "abiogenesis" and is properly quite a different topic from evolution. An appropriate analogy would be to think about driving. Figuring out evolution is equivalent to figuring out how the driver controls the car. Figuring out abiogenesis is equivalent to figuring out how the car was being built, except that cars are not being built any more and the factories were long ago torn down and destroyed!

We have very good evidence for the last several hundred million years of evolution. We know that life got started well before that. We have very little evidence of what happened when life got started, and we know much less than we would like to about the processes that were involved.

All of that said, the problem is not absolutely hopeless. While little concrete can be said, there is research progressing, but that said, it all is pretty tenative.

Now I am not positive which professor you are quoting, but you should be aware of common mistakes that are made. The fact that we have much less that is concrete to say about how abiogenesis probably happened is not equivalent to saying that it was an impossible event!

In fact we do have good evidence that the process involved was very long. It turns out that ammino acids can appear in 2 configurations, left-handed or right-handed. On the surface it would appear that the two are (up to a mirror symmetry in what they interact with) chemically equivalent. However there is in physics a very slight asymetry, and theoretically the left-handed version should be slightly more stable.

When I say slightly, I mean slightly! The theoretical difference is too small for us to actually measure. However over millions of years the difference could possibly be significant. It is then potentially significant there there is a strong bias in life towards left-handed ammino acids...

Anyways, the short answer is that we don't really know how abiogenesis happened, but it does not seem (at least to many in the field) to be a fundamentally impossible event. In any case questions around abiogenesis do not compose evidence against evolution per se.

Cheers,
Ben

I've just re-read my original post, and I'm beginning to doubt my sanity. I didn't actually say anything nasty, argumentative, offensive, or disrespectful - all I did was disagree with your argument, in a fairly clear and calm manner. I was not being immature, unles they have changed the definition of maturity in the last few days.

Getting to your points:
"Or stated differently if you teach theories just to be teaching theories then you are not learning to think but only to recite by rote."
Please enlighten me: where did I suggest that people should be taught theories for the sake of teaching them theories? I advocated teaching theories as a means of exposure to the thought processes behind them - this is about as far from "rote learning" as you can get. As a side effect, in the teaching of science, the pupil comes out of the teaching with knowledge of scientific theories, which can be extremely powerful tools. How can anyone argue sensibly against that sort of teaching?

"As for the comment challenging beliefs the earlier the better. I disagree, human development limits what can be taught when."
Once again you miss the point I was trying to make. I wasn't advocating teaching kindergarten kids relativity (unless they ask for it), I was advocating that they be exposed to as many different kinds of ideas as possible. Human development might limit what can be taught, but it doesn't limit the flexibility of the young in dealing with a broad range of experience and ideas. In fact, children are generally _far_ more flexible in this than most adults, even the least anomalous of them. And if you can give them that broad experience of ideas, there's a good chance that they'll develop to the point where they can deal with the more complex things much earlier. Saying "Oh, that's too hard for the poor children, we'll leave it for a year or two" is almost certainly underestimating their capabilities.

"And finally, conformity of thought (or teaching for that matter) does not really promote advances."
Straw Man Alert! Straw Man Alert! I didn't say anything like that - in fact, rather than promote conformity of thought, I was advocating _exactly_ the opposite.

"Needless to say, from what I have read of your postings, you have made up your mind about evolution and expect everyone else to agree with you."
Well, yes, I have made up my mind about evolution. In fact, I made it up so long ago that I can't even remember when it happened, though I was probably seven or eight at the time . . . And yes, I suppose I do expect everyone else to agree with me, at least provisionally, because the evidence for evolution is so _convincing_. Pretty much the only way to argue with the validity of evolutionary theory is by rejecting chunks of it outright, generally on the basis of little or no evidence. That's what creationists do, and that's what those scientists who have a problem with evolution do ("Macroevolution is different from Microevolution!" How?). It's a bit of a generalisation, but the scientific community in general doesn't even wonder about evolution's validity any more, the evidence is so strong.
I realise you've probably read at least half a dozen equivalent recomendations, but go have a look at the talk.origins web site, and read the FAQS. There's a hell of a lot more about evolution there than I can carry around in my head, and they list very good references.

Oh, and I have read about creation "theory". What's more, I've read the bible (admittedly a long time ago, but even so). The problem is, the kind of thing that creation theory claims is extraordinarily hard to accept, for someone with training in physics - unless you distort the words to the point where it's an exercise in semantics, rather than science, there is nothing in them that presents a more coherent, consistent explanation of the origin of the universe and our planet than that presented by science. Given that, and using the famous "Ockhams razor", I am pretty much forced to discard creation theory in favour of science's explanations. It would take some very powerful evidence to shift me, and I haven't seen anything that even approaches that coming out of the creationist camp.

I'm sorry if this seems unreasonable and immature to you, or even (god forbid!) disrespectful, but I can't help how you react to my honest and deeply thought out opinions. I'm not going to stop expressing them, particularly not for an AC on Slashdot.

himi
Australian Science Rules!!! Yay! Yay!

Not that I saw! And you didn't even have the guts to sign it.

Let me take this bit by bit.

There is no proof that Evoltion is true.

You cannot even spell Evolution! As for evidence, you did look in the FAQs that were pointed to above?

Darwin himself later in life admitted that he was wrong.

The infamous Lady Hope story. Known to be a lie.

There is only evolution with in a class.

It seems that you have a common confusion about what macroevolution is and isn't.

Every "ape man" ever found has been proved wrong. The bones that they found where hundreds of feet even miles apart and in different layers of the earth.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. In a word, "Lucy".

In evolution you only evolve to have what you need. So since we don't need a third arm that is why we don't have a third arm. Well then how come we only use 10% of our brain. Why did we "evolve" to have such a big brain?

Warning, warning, urban legend alert! Do do have a reference?

If Evolution is real then there would be hundreds even thousands of transition fossils and yet there isn't even one!

Funny, the scientists seem to think otherwise.

Evolution is a theory and all it takes is one thing to prove it wrong and then it should thrown out. There are to many things that prove evolution to be wrong and not enough to back it up.

May I hold Creationism to the same standard?

To me it is easier to beleive that a living God made the earth and it didn't just happen. Have you ever seen a tornado go through a junk yard and assemble a perfectly working car. No! So what makes you think that something as big and complex as the earth and every living thing on it can happen by chance.

And that is a straw-man argument.

If you just look around you you will see that there is someone out there that is bigger than each and everyone of us. Just open your eyes and you will see.

Is closing my eyes also a pre-requisite? So far your batting average is pretty darned pathetic...

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

Not that I saw! And you didn't even have the guts to sign it.

Let me take this bit by bit.

There is no proof that Evoltion is true.

You cannot even spell Evolution! As for evidence, you did look in the FAQs that were pointed to above?

Darwin himself later in life admitted that he was wrong.

The infamous Lady Hope story. Known to be a lie.

There is only evolution with in a class.

It seems that you have a common confusion about what macroevolution is and isn't.

Every "ape man" ever found has been proved wrong. The bones that they found where hundreds of feet even miles apart and in different layers of the earth.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. In a word, "Lucy".

In evolution you only evolve to have what you need. So since we don't need a third arm that is why we don't have a third arm. Well then how come we only use 10% of our brain. Why did we "evolve" to have such a big brain?

Warning, warning, urban legend alert! Do do have a reference?

If Evolution is real then there would be hundreds even thousands of transition fossils and yet there isn't even one!

Funny, the scientists seem to think otherwise.

Evolution is a theory and all it takes is one thing to prove it wrong and then it should thrown out. There are to many things that prove evolution to be wrong and not enough to back it up.

May I hold Creationism to the same standard?

To me it is easier to beleive that a living God made the earth and it didn't just happen. Have you ever seen a tornado go through a junk yard and assemble a perfectly working car. No! So what makes you think that something as big and complex as the earth and every living thing on it can happen by chance.

And that is a straw-man argument.

If you just look around you you will see that there is someone out there that is bigger than each and everyone of us. Just open your eyes and you will see.

Is closing my eyes also a pre-requisite? So far your batting average is pretty darned pathetic...

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

Not that I saw! And you didn't even have the guts to sign it.

Let me take this bit by bit.

There is no proof that Evoltion is true.

You cannot even spell Evolution! As for evidence, you did look in the FAQs that were pointed to above?

Darwin himself later in life admitted that he was wrong.

The infamous Lady Hope story. Known to be a lie.

There is only evolution with in a class.

It seems that you have a common confusion about what macroevolution is and isn't.

Every "ape man" ever found has been proved wrong. The bones that they found where hundreds of feet even miles apart and in different layers of the earth.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. In a word, "Lucy".

In evolution you only evolve to have what you need. So since we don't need a third arm that is why we don't have a third arm. Well then how come we only use 10% of our brain. Why did we "evolve" to have such a big brain?

Warning, warning, urban legend alert! Do do have a reference?

If Evolution is real then there would be hundreds even thousands of transition fossils and yet there isn't even one!

Funny, the scientists seem to think otherwise.

Evolution is a theory and all it takes is one thing to prove it wrong and then it should thrown out. There are to many things that prove evolution to be wrong and not enough to back it up.

May I hold Creationism to the same standard?

To me it is easier to beleive that a living God made the earth and it didn't just happen. Have you ever seen a tornado go through a junk yard and assemble a perfectly working car. No! So what makes you think that something as big and complex as the earth and every living thing on it can happen by chance.

And that is a straw-man argument.

If you just look around you you will see that there is someone out there that is bigger than each and everyone of us. Just open your eyes and you will see.

Is closing my eyes also a pre-requisite? So far your batting average is pretty darned pathetic...

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

Not that I saw! And you didn't even have the guts to sign it.

Let me take this bit by bit.

There is no proof that Evoltion is true.

You cannot even spell Evolution! As for evidence, you did look in the FAQs that were pointed to above?

Darwin himself later in life admitted that he was wrong.

The infamous Lady Hope story. Known to be a lie.

There is only evolution with in a class.

It seems that you have a common confusion about what macroevolution is and isn't.

Every "ape man" ever found has been proved wrong. The bones that they found where hundreds of feet even miles apart and in different layers of the earth.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. In a word, "Lucy".

In evolution you only evolve to have what you need. So since we don't need a third arm that is why we don't have a third arm. Well then how come we only use 10% of our brain. Why did we "evolve" to have such a big brain?

Warning, warning, urban legend alert! Do do have a reference?

If Evolution is real then there would be hundreds even thousands of transition fossils and yet there isn't even one!

Funny, the scientists seem to think otherwise.

Evolution is a theory and all it takes is one thing to prove it wrong and then it should thrown out. There are to many things that prove evolution to be wrong and not enough to back it up.

May I hold Creationism to the same standard?

To me it is easier to beleive that a living God made the earth and it didn't just happen. Have you ever seen a tornado go through a junk yard and assemble a perfectly working car. No! So what makes you think that something as big and complex as the earth and every living thing on it can happen by chance.

And that is a straw-man argument.

If you just look around you you will see that there is someone out there that is bigger than each and everyone of us. Just open your eyes and you will see.

Is closing my eyes also a pre-requisite? So far your batting average is pretty darned pathetic...

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

Not that I saw! And you didn't even have the guts to sign it.

Let me take this bit by bit.

There is no proof that Evoltion is true.

You cannot even spell Evolution! As for evidence, you did look in the FAQs that were pointed to above?

Darwin himself later in life admitted that he was wrong.

The infamous Lady Hope story. Known to be a lie.

There is only evolution with in a class.

It seems that you have a common confusion about what macroevolution is and isn't.

Every "ape man" ever found has been proved wrong. The bones that they found where hundreds of feet even miles apart and in different layers of the earth.

You clearly don't have a clue what you are talking about. In a word, "Lucy".

In evolution you only evolve to have what you need. So since we don't need a third arm that is why we don't have a third arm. Well then how come we only use 10% of our brain. Why did we "evolve" to have such a big brain?

Warning, warning, urban legend alert! Do do have a reference?

If Evolution is real then there would be hundreds even thousands of transition fossils and yet there isn't even one!

Funny, the scientists seem to think otherwise.

Evolution is a theory and all it takes is one thing to prove it wrong and then it should thrown out. There are to many things that prove evolution to be wrong and not enough to back it up.

May I hold Creationism to the same standard?

To me it is easier to beleive that a living God made the earth and it didn't just happen. Have you ever seen a tornado go through a junk yard and assemble a perfectly working car. No! So what makes you think that something as big and complex as the earth and every living thing on it can happen by chance.

And that is a straw-man argument.

If you just look around you you will see that there is someone out there that is bigger than each and everyone of us. Just open your eyes and you will see.

Is closing my eyes also a pre-requisite? So far your batting average is pretty darned pathetic...

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

If you look at the link for Aristotle you will see that he is listed as being an early biologist. But he is not listed as a precurser to Darwin's theories on evolution. This FAQ will give you a better picture of that.

As for whether or not Archeopteryx is a bird, I find it amusing that the first 2 links explain why some people don't call it a bird, and the third stresses the non-birdlike features. As I said, it is a transitional form.

And if, as you suggest at the end of your post, you want my suggestion for an example to look at, why not use the one that I gave you? The rising of the mammals from the therapsid reptiles? Remember that your original claim was that there was "a complete lack of transitional forms". Do you still maintain that claim?


As for dating, I recommend that if you are truly interested you either follow some of the references in the Isochron FAQ, or else show up on talk.origins and ask politely for more information.

If you want to see multiple dating methods giving the same value, you could do worse than to go to:

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp.


Moving on to your criticism of scientists, I am the first to admit that scientists are human, and no human endeavor is as idealistic as science is often made out to be. However don't dismiss it so simply as that! The scientific process as a whole is designed in such a way that the truth will out (in time). And as it does, the case for that truth is laid bare for investigation by anyone who is truly interested. So whether or not you trust individual scientists, you can still evaluate the products of science for yourself.

Please do that before dismissing the conclusions of the entire enterprise out of hand.

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

If you look at the link for Aristotle you will see that he is listed as being an early biologist. But he is not listed as a precurser to Darwin's theories on evolution. This FAQ will give you a better picture of that.

As for whether or not Archeopteryx is a bird, I find it amusing that the first 2 links explain why some people don't call it a bird, and the third stresses the non-birdlike features. As I said, it is a transitional form.

And if, as you suggest at the end of your post, you want my suggestion for an example to look at, why not use the one that I gave you? The rising of the mammals from the therapsid reptiles? Remember that your original claim was that there was "a complete lack of transitional forms". Do you still maintain that claim?


As for dating, I recommend that if you are truly interested you either follow some of the references in the Isochron FAQ, or else show up on talk.origins and ask politely for more information.

If you want to see multiple dating methods giving the same value, you could do worse than to go to:

Dalrymple, G. Brent, 1986. Radiometric Dating, Geologic Time, And The Age Of The Earth: A Reply To "Scientific" Creationism, U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 86-110. 76 pp.


Moving on to your criticism of scientists, I am the first to admit that scientists are human, and no human endeavor is as idealistic as science is often made out to be. However don't dismiss it so simply as that! The scientific process as a whole is designed in such a way that the truth will out (in time). And as it does, the case for that truth is laid bare for investigation by anyone who is truly interested. So whether or not you trust individual scientists, you can still evaluate the products of science for yourself.

Please do that before dismissing the conclusions of the entire enterprise out of hand.

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

Indeed Snelling's article looks reasonable. However search down for Snelling's name here to find a rather detailed rebuttal.

As for Falkner's article, the evidence against a global flood is so overwhelming that traditional geology had abandoned that theory before 1820. The evidence is even stronger now. For one instance I have never seen any creationist explain the ice sheets. Ice sheets lay down annual layers, very similarly to tree rings. You can date ice cores by simple counting. (Although this is tedious and so short-cuts are usually taken.) We have cores from Vostok, Antartica, and Greenland that are both well over 100,000 years and clearly show that no global Flood affected them in that time.

Today "Flood geology" is clearly an attempt to shoehorn the world into a pre-determined religious model. Basic facts are ignored, thrown away, abused, and mutilated. There is no attempt at intellectual honesty, and no attempt to take into account even basic facts.

All of which makes the second paper even more galling. What it does is walk through a series of topics, and try to point out potential problems in the very detailed current scientific theories. This is truly a case of ignoring the beam in your own eye while complaining about the mote in your neighbour's. What is even more ironic is that their job is practically done for them. The normal process of science includes a constant self-examination and highlighting of all potential issues. Those issues are not hidden, but are instead explored in detail. So all the creationist has to do is go to the scientific literature, and look for articles that raise these issues, and make a list. Throw in a few mis-understandings, and some mis-information, and voila! A list of problems in the current scientific world view!

Of course a similar self-criticism is never turned towards the Creationist's own views. And the reason is simple, any sincere Creationist with the self-discipline and honesty required to do that long ago ceased to be a Creationist!

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

In my research I have found it a common understanding that speciation has never been observed, despite numerous experiments involving thousands of generations of bacteria and mutated species. What is this wallaby you speak of? I have tried numerous searches for it, but can find nothing on it.

As for macro-evolution, take the given scenario...

1. Why would a difference in the number of genes be necessary?
2. What makes you think that it's unlikely? Entire chromosomes, containing thousands of genes, are often duplicated or deleted in organisms all the time.

Pardon me if I stop taking you seriously.

Evolution simply stipulates that the alleles in a population will change over time towards other alleles which will give a life form a competitive advantage. It's the same process whether speciation is invloved or not. Usually what determines whether speciation occurs is whether a population is separated into different segments for an extended period of time. Read nobel lauriate, Christian DeLuve's book Vital Dust, or for a quick explaination, check out this link .

You claim that we see no evidence of cross-species evolution. Do you need a list of examples? That will also give you a list of transitional forms as well.

When it comes to dating, I find your comment about the geologist unbelievable. If you had any interest in dating I am sure that over 2 decades you could have satisfied yourself on the techniques in use.

In any case the resolution to your puzzle is quite simple. There are specific types of fossils that are used as indicators. For instance tribolites. The mark of a good indicator species is that it had to be common, fossilize well, and change rapidly. For each indicator species there are specific finds from which we have independently determined what time-period they existed in. (Usually through radioactive dating of some sort.) Given that we know when the indicator species actually existed, it can in turn be used as an easy dating mechanism for rocks. (It is easier to see a fossil in the field than it is to date rocks with sophisticated equipment!) Then the fossils that you are really interested in, which you don't have a date on, can be dated from the dating for the rocks.

The pattern here is a bootstrap where our conclusions from reliable but difficult dating methods about common species allow those species in turn to be used for a less precise dating of rock layers, which in turn allows us to date fossils.

Don't knock it! The geologists knowledge of indicator species (primarily tribolites) is central to exploration techniques for fossil fuels. (Coal, oil, natural gas.)

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

1. Actually the potential problem with volcanoes is that they emit lots of non-radioactive carbon. Not that they emit radio-active carbon!
   
   
2. Only simplistic presentations suffer this limitation. The key is not constant but determinable based on a variety of factors. In the case of C-14, for instance, the levels of C-14 in the atmosphere vary over time depending upon current solar activity, therefore the equations to solve for the age of a sample using C-14 are substantially complicated. It is still doable but not constant. With other forms of radioactive decay the decay products may come into it, allowing dating without any assumptions about the original age of the sample.
   
   
3. The "speed of light is slowing" theory was first put forth by Barry Setterfield. Any reasonable examination of the evidence shows that it is not really a tenable theory. In fact even the Institute for Creation Research has disclaimed it since 1988.
   
   
4. The magnetic field has long been known to fluctuate, and even reverse. Projecting out a simplistic equation on a complex phenomena is always a bad idea.
   
   
5. The Moon dust argument was a projection based on a single bad estimate from a single measurement with faulty assumptions. There is no contradiction at all between current measurements of the rate of dust accumulation and the current levels of dust on the Moon. Want some details?
   

1. Actually the potential problem with volcanoes is that they emit lots of non-radioactive carbon. Not that they emit radio-active carbon!
   
   
2. Only simplistic presentations suffer this limitation. The key is not constant but determinable based on a variety of factors. In the case of C-14, for instance, the levels of C-14 in the atmosphere vary over time depending upon current solar activity, therefore the equations to solve for the age of a sample using C-14 are substantially complicated. It is still doable but not constant. With other forms of radioactive decay the decay products may come into it, allowing dating without any assumptions about the original age of the sample.
   
   
3. The "speed of light is slowing" theory was first put forth by Barry Setterfield. Any reasonable examination of the evidence shows that it is not really a tenable theory. In fact even the Institute for Creation Research has disclaimed it since 1988.
   
   
4. The magnetic field has long been known to fluctuate, and even reverse. Projecting out a simplistic equation on a complex phenomena is always a bad idea.
   
   
5. The Moon dust argument was a projection based on a single bad estimate from a single measurement with faulty assumptions. There is no contradiction at all between current measurements of the rate of dust accumulation and the current levels of dust on the Moon. Want some details?
   

1. Actually the potential problem with volcanoes is that they emit lots of non-radioactive carbon. Not that they emit radio-active carbon!
   
   
2. Only simplistic presentations suffer this limitation. The key is not constant but determinable based on a variety of factors. In the case of C-14, for instance, the levels of C-14 in the atmosphere vary over time depending upon current solar activity, therefore the equations to solve for the age of a sample using C-14 are substantially complicated. It is still doable but not constant. With other forms of radioactive decay the decay products may come into it, allowing dating without any assumptions about the original age of the sample.
   
   
3. The "speed of light is slowing" theory was first put forth by Barry Setterfield. Any reasonable examination of the evidence shows that it is not really a tenable theory. In fact even the Institute for Creation Research has disclaimed it since 1988.
   
   
4. The magnetic field has long been known to fluctuate, and even reverse. Projecting out a simplistic equation on a complex phenomena is always a bad idea.
   
   
5. The Moon dust argument was a projection based on a single bad estimate from a single measurement with faulty assumptions. There is no contradiction at all between current measurements of the rate of dust accumulation and the current levels of dust on the Moon. Want some details?
   

It seems that people won't bother trying to search them before posting. If they did they might turn up a thing or two...

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

It seems that people won't bother trying to search them before posting. If they did they might turn up a thing or two...

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

It seems that people won't bother trying to search them before posting. If they did they might turn up a thing or two...

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

Evolution (or more correctly the Theory of Evolution [ie, the theory that uses evolution driven by natural selection and genetic drift to explain the development of speciation(sp?)]) has been considered a sound theory for so long that almost all of modern biology is based on it. The only people who don't think it's up to scratch are the people who's world view is destroyed by it: fundamentalist christians, young-earth christian scientists and probably one or two more obscure groups. The scientific community as a whole actually considers evolution in general to be one of the most successful theories ever.

I would recomend that you read the talk.origins FAQs to get a bit more insight into the current state of things. It is a really good resource.

Oh, and another thing: creationism doesn't even rate as a hypothesis. You see, it isn't actually falsifiable (it isn't even a coherent hypothesis, really), and if you can't prove a hypothesis to be wrong it's essentially worthless to science. You can never prove something _true_ in science, so if you can't prove it false then there's nothing much to work with.
And, of course, an experiment to verify something is boring - it's much more fun to set out to find clear evidence _against_ a hypothesis (and it generally makes you more famous).

In any case, the only point of comparison between evolutionary theory and creationism is the fact that they both try to explain part of how the world works. Other than that, creationism just isn't in the same league.

himi

If you actually knew anything about dating you would know that the criticisms of C-14 dating that Creationists like to spout are very well understood and have long been accounted for within the scientific community. Secondly C-14 dating only works back at most a few tens of thousands of years and could not possibly be used for measuring a date that is a couple of billion years old.

But what does it matter if we are out of range by a factor of a hundred thousand or so? You probably only know the one tidbit about C-14 dating, that it can be wrong, why dig up facts to get in the way of spreading your misconceptions?

Or you could have at least tried to learn something...

Regards,
Ben Tilly

You don't need any scientific credibility, any specialized knowledge, or any background in real science (practically all the books that contain 'evidence' against evolution are written by people who confess they are only amateur science enthusiasts - that doesn't matter to their audience). All you need to do is go to a web site like talk origins, get a list of all the bogus arguments that have been used against evolution (carefully ignoring their gross errors), put them into a book, and watch the money roll in.

Who cares if there is an ignorant sub-class living in Kansas? They are not going to influence the minds of normal educated people. More people believe in astrology than 'Creation Science' - and who cares? The only difference that makes to smart people is that they should concentrate their efforts on writing astrology books than creation books if they want to make the most money out of stupid people. Roderick Murgatroid r_murgatroid@hotmail.com

What's the misquoted part here? Nothing much, just twisting E. and G.'s statement that smooth intermediate fossil sequences are almost impossible to construct, into "Gould and Eldredge specifically exclude Archaeopteryx as a transitional form ..." Neither Eldredge nor Gould hold the latter view and they've taken pains in later publications to make that clear.

In particular: (Gould 1983, p. 260) "... since we proposed punctuated equilibrium to explain trends, it is infuriating to be quoted again and again by creationists - whether through design or stupidity, I do not know - as admitting that the fossil record includes no transitional forms. Transitional forms are generally lacking at the species level but are abundant between larger groups." Moreover, Gould (1991, p. 144-145): "Archaeopteryx, the first bird, is as pretty an intermediate as paleontology could ever hope to find."

See Archaeopteryx: Answering the Challenge of the Fossil Record for the whole sorry story. Eldredge, N. & Gould, S. J. 1977. "Punctuated equilibrium: the tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered." Paleobiology, 3: 115-151

Gish, D. T. 1985. "Evolution: Challenge of the Fossil Record." Creation-Life, San Diego. 278 pp.

Gish, D. T. 1995. "Evolution: the fossils still say NO!" Institute for Creation Research, El Cajon, California. 391 pp.

Gould, S. J. 1983. "Hen's Teeth and Horse's Toes." Norton & Co, New York. 413 pp.

Gould, S. J. 1991. "Bully for Brontosaurus." Penguin, London. 540 pp.

We still have protozoa, every example I've heard of of a half-bird/half-reptile mix has turned out to be either a hoax, a bird, or a reptile, more and more species are going extinct, and I bet you can't show me exactly what bats evolved from.

Archaeopteryx is not a forgery; Hoyle et al were wrong.

Species are indeed going extinct, but new species continue to evolve.

We may not know about bats, but we do know about birds (see above), whales and dolphins, and... well, the list goes on.

Check out the above links, and get back to us.

We still have protozoa, every example I've heard of of a half-bird/half-reptile mix has turned out to be either a hoax, a bird, or a reptile, more and more species are going extinct, and I bet you can't show me exactly what bats evolved from.

Archaeopteryx is not a forgery; Hoyle et al were wrong.

Species are indeed going extinct, but new species continue to evolve.

We may not know about bats, but we do know about birds (see above), whales and dolphins, and... well, the list goes on.

Check out the above links, and get back to us.

We still have protozoa, every example I've heard of of a half-bird/half-reptile mix has turned out to be either a hoax, a bird, or a reptile, more and more species are going extinct, and I bet you can't show me exactly what bats evolved from.

Archaeopteryx is not a forgery; Hoyle et al were wrong.

Species are indeed going extinct, but new species continue to evolve.

We may not know about bats, but we do know about birds (see above), whales and dolphins, and... well, the list goes on.

Check out the above links, and get back to us.

We still have protozoa, every example I've heard of of a half-bird/half-reptile mix has turned out to be either a hoax, a bird, or a reptile, more and more species are going extinct, and I bet you can't show me exactly what bats evolved from.

Archaeopteryx is not a forgery; Hoyle et al were wrong.

Species are indeed going extinct, but new species continue to evolve.

We may not know about bats, but we do know about birds (see above), whales and dolphins, and... well, the list goes on.

Check out the above links, and get back to us.

We still have protozoa, every example I've heard of of a half-bird/half-reptile mix has turned out to be either a hoax, a bird, or a reptile, more and more species are going extinct, and I bet you can't show me exactly what bats evolved from.

Archaeopteryx is not a forgery; Hoyle et al were wrong.

Species are indeed going extinct, but new species continue to evolve.

We may not know about bats, but we do know about birds (see above), whales and dolphins, and... well, the list goes on.

Check out the above links, and get back to us.

Your credibility would be better if you got some facts right. Like the spelling of Neanderthal. Like the spelling of "Chimps". Like the fact that chimpanzees are 98.6% homologous to us.

I also, like the previous poster, do not believe that Neanderthal man has ever been sequenced. As for "Stone Age" man, well that covers a lot of ground. The only "Stone Age" men that I know have been sequenced turned out to be modern humans. Strangely enough they tended to be people who are living places like New Guinea...

Oh, and your description of the difference between micro and macro evolution is ludicrous. You may want to learn something before babbling more.

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

The ICR (Institution for Creation Research) is a religous organization intended to turn "creation science" from an oxymoron into an agenda politically rammed into the USA education system. But, don't believe me, check out The Creation Research Society's Creed and Visits to the ICR Museum and decide for yourself.

I've read a couple of Gish's and Morris' books and lost count of the number of half-truths, misleading or out of context quotes, and outright lies in the first chapters. See Creationist Whoppers to see how they were revealed to be "liars for Jeezus" that they are.

Anyway, I glanced through trueorigin.org's Thermo rebuttals and found the same old bogus 2nd Law of Thermo crap, with the buzz-words changed so maybe their target audience won't notice. They're still using the outdated "disorder" metaphor for entropy, probably because it plays so well in the Bible Belt. By all means, read this site, but take everything they say with an entire shaker of salt. 8-)

The ICR (Institution for Creation Research) is a religous organization intended to turn "creation science" from an oxymoron into an agenda politically rammed into the USA education system. But, don't believe me, check out The Creation Research Society's Creed and Visits to the ICR Museum and decide for yourself.

I've read a couple of Gish's and Morris' books and lost count of the number of half-truths, misleading or out of context quotes, and outright lies in the first chapters. See Creationist Whoppers to see how they were revealed to be "liars for Jeezus" that they are.

Anyway, I glanced through trueorigin.org's Thermo rebuttals and found the same old bogus 2nd Law of Thermo crap, with the buzz-words changed so maybe their target audience won't notice. They're still using the outdated "disorder" metaphor for entropy, probably because it plays so well in the Bible Belt. By all means, read this site, but take everything they say with an entire shaker of salt. 8-)

The ICR (Institution for Creation Research) is a religous organization intended to turn "creation science" from an oxymoron into an agenda politically rammed into the USA education system. But, don't believe me, check out The Creation Research Society's Creed and Visits to the ICR Museum and decide for yourself.

I've read a couple of Gish's and Morris' books and lost count of the number of half-truths, misleading or out of context quotes, and outright lies in the first chapters. See Creationist Whoppers to see how they were revealed to be "liars for Jeezus" that they are.

Anyway, I glanced through trueorigin.org's Thermo rebuttals and found the same old bogus 2nd Law of Thermo crap, with the buzz-words changed so maybe their target audience won't notice. They're still using the outdated "disorder" metaphor for entropy, probably because it plays so well in the Bible Belt. By all means, read this site, but take everything they say with an entire shaker of salt. 8-)

Speaking of global floods, you have a shifting definition here. Using the example of Mars, where the amount of liquid water on a global scale may have changed, then yes, the earth has experienced periods where the sea levels have gone up and down by huge amounts, when water has become locked up in large ice sheets. Using the definition of a biblical-style "global flood", many problems arise, not the least of which is, "where did the water go?" :). I recommend looking at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ faq-noahs-ark.html for a discussion of some of the problems with a biblical style global flood.

The problems that science has with young earth creationism are not because scientists refuse to look at the evidence, but instead because they have.

Speaking of global floods, you have a shifting definition here. Using the example of Mars, where the amount of liquid water on a global scale may have changed, then yes, the earth has experienced periods where the sea levels have gone up and down by huge amounts, when water has become locked up in large ice sheets. Using the definition of a biblical-style "global flood", many problems arise, not the least of which is, "where did the water go?" :). I recommend looking at http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/ faq-noahs-ark.html for a discussion of some of the problems with a biblical style global flood.

The problems that science has with young earth creationism are not because scientists refuse to look at the evidence, but instead because they have.

No "special links" eh? Then, what is an Archeopteryx? Is it a dinosaur with feathers, wishbone (for attachment of flight muscles) or a bird with teeth, and a reptilian skull, pelvis, claws, and tail?
What about the recently discovered Chinese fossil Sinornis santensis? Is it a bird or a dinosaur? It has claws on its toes, bird-shaped shoulders, teeth, saurian ribs, and a reptilian pelvis.

I'm not going to go through the entire (long) list, which includes whales, dolphins, horses, rhinos, rabbits, pigs, giraffes, cows, etc, etc, etc. See the Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ.

Thanks for the t.o. link. The two creationist arguments I discussed are conventially debunked here and here. On the paucity of fossil evidence for missing links I offer Darwin:

...Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the gravest objection which can be urged against my theory ... ( On the Origin of Species, 1859, p310)

I can only conclude that we have nothing to argue with each other about. Time to get back to bashing microsoft.

Thanks for the t.o. link. The two creationist arguments I discussed are conventially debunked here and here. On the paucity of fossil evidence for missing links I offer Darwin:

...Why then is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely graduated organic chain; and this, perhaps, is the gravest objection which can be urged against my theory ... ( On the Origin of Species, 1859, p310)

I can only conclude that we have nothing to argue with each other about. Time to get back to bashing microsoft.

Thanks for the link. The talk.origins site is quite interesting, and is going to take quite awhile to read. It is all quite slanted toward macro-evolution as an indisputable fact.

But macro-evolution is disputed. Check out the other side of the debate at trueorigin.org. This site has rebuttals to many of the talk.origins FAQs, and seems no less interesting or worth reading.

I recommend that both sites be checked out. For the record, I am a Christian who believes that God created everything, including life. I don't know literally how He did it, but I'm not afraid of investigating the evidence and ideas put forth by both creationists and evolutionists. I doubt that anyone is 100% correct.

Do yourself a favor - get some science education. As far as your current question is concerned - there is a good FAQ mentioned in this group -
link here . I will save my arguments - we need to be on the same level of basic knowledge to discuss FACTS.

And just where did I say my (physics) students were dummies? Now, they were quite bright kids - that made the lack of basic science and math education that they brought from school even more obvious. It's a fact. Sorry.

Please find me a knowledgable biologist who believes that the differences between races and species is not a difference of degree, and not of kind. That is, there is no difference between macro and micro evolution except in the minds of people who don't know better.

Oh, BTW, you may want to also glance at this...

Ben

You seemed to be so confused on so many topics I don't know WHERE to begin.

I'll take a few random potshots.

1) Man is not evolved from apes. NOBODY has EVER suggested this seriously, except, it seems, creationists. Man and ape has a (possibly recent) common ancestor. We share much of the same genetic information. This is fact.

2) You can't disprove or prove ANYTHING about God. If I have to explain this to you, I'm assuming you are totally unreachable, but I will give it a shot. In general anything that requires faith can never be falsified. Any critical inspection of a "faith" based tenet can be met with a simple "because I said so." Example: you can't prove it wasnt 47 green electric shavers that created the universe if I claim they are omnesceint and omnipotent, and my only arguement is "well you just have to believe it".

3) Animal vs. Human. Murder is not unique to man. All animals do it. However, murder is much less common than killing things of different species. This is also something shared between all living things on the planet. Assuming a good understanding evolution and the concept of the "selfish gene" it is easy to see why this is true. A "well adapted", sucessful gene is be one that makes sure that it is replicated widely. Whether it is THIS particular gene, or others like it is irrelevant. Implicit in this is the gene's tendency to express this in a particularly intersting physical trait. It turns out that animals (and many other less complex organisms) are very good at discerning which other organisms are similar (ie. have similar genes). Most likely this will be expressed in the tendancy for an organism to value "similar" life over "non-similar" life. Humans have come up with a neat way of rationalizing this behavior, since we have very large brains we are quite adept at self-delusion. Typically, it boils down to religion, or the things similar to the simple aphorism "blood is thicker than water".

Finally, I'm going to plug this again. Most likely it will do no good, but c'est la vie.

I'm a Kansan, and for the most part, this decision doesn't really hold much interest for me, one way or the other. I'm home schooling my daughter, and this doesn't really affect me. (And yes, when she is old enough she will learn about the "Theory of Evolution", but not about the "Fact of Evolution").

Er, ahm, evolution is both "Fact" & "Theory". See this link for details before you teach your daughter misinformation;

www.talkorigins.org

In sum, evolution is a fact, since it's oberservable and does happen .

Theory, since we don't know how, exactly, it works though what we don't know is getting very thin. Theory does not mean "best guess" to the science community, it means that there's a good tool that is consistant with the facts, but not dogmatically so.

OK, the easy stuff first: When evolution is proved, .... and eventually prove it, right? You must have been sleeping in class when they mentioned the Scientific Method. Save for pure Mathematics, you can't prove any hypothesis true. But, you can demonstrate that one is false. So, your first condition falls flat from day one. When science legitimately disproves creation, I'll be done with faith. Again you demonstrate an ignorance of scientific method. Creation by a diety, as it is usually expressed in the USA, is an unfalsifiable hyphothesis (it requires gods and other omnipotentient beings who can do anything and can never be pinned down). So, science will never "disprove" it. Your faith is safe.

I've got no problem believing in microevolution. There ain't no such thing as micro- or macro-evolution, save in the minds of Creationists. There is only varying degrees of evolution. Let's nail down the definition of evolution:

Evolution: A change in allele frequency in a population of creatures over time.

Allele: An instance of a gene. Say the green seeds vs. yellow seeds in G. Mendel's classic experiment. Green seeds are an allele for the seed color gene. Same for smooth vs. wrinkled seeds and the seed texture gene, or blossom colors, etc.

Anyone who has ever bred dogs or canaries or whatever has seen this happen, all the time, whether you want it to do so, or not. Every new strain of staph that is more resistant to antibiotics is evolving. Each and every strain of penicillin resistant bacteria evolved to become resistant. Same for the finches on the Galapagos Islands as the average beak size changes in response to long term weather patterns.

Given all of the evidence there is no doubt that biological evolution is effectively a fact, as much of a fact as gravity. It simply is how living things work. However, this is likely what led to the "microevolution" concept -- it was a way for Creationists to try to accept the basic facts of life, yet not accept their unavoidable conclusion. In other words, it was a way for them to admit that it was possible to walk down the street, yet deny that it is possible to walk from L.A. to New York City.

Other postings have dealt with the facts of evolution vs. the different theories of evolution. See What is Evolution? for a better description that I can write.

Evolution is overwhelmingly the best theory we have for the origin of species. However, given that:

• Reasonably well-educated people have a hard time understanding the evidence for evolution (read the posts on Slashdot if you're in any doubt).
  
• Public schools have a poor record of teaching subjects as complex as evolution in an accurate or reasonable manner (some teachers undoubtedly do well; others don't).
  

Instead, focus on teaching critical thinking skills (another area in which our public school system has a spotty record), and provide enough of a factual background (DNA and such) that college intro to biology courses have a foundation on which to discuss evolution.

Which isn't to say that many of the specific evidence that supports evolution shouldn't be taught. For example, by all means discuss radioactive dating in geology; that area is not only absolutely solid science, but should be easily comprehended with a high school education.

If you think I'm wrong about this, by all means say so. I'd love to think that evolution is a high-school-level topic. But given that colleges these days are having to teach basic algebra, I'm not so confident.

Seriously, I see a lot of people who say, "We don't have much evidence" but I do not see that from people who are intellectually honest and have actually investigated the subject. A good starting place if you want to look online would be the FAQS for talk.origins.

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

For every biased POS you can find a rebuttal.

Secondly re-read Behe, he agrees with the scientific orthodoxy on the last 200 million years of evolution, which is something that the average creationist does not want to remember.

Sincerely,
Ben Tilly

Just check the fossil record. Ancient hominids weren't exactly thick on the ground, but there were a few fossils left.

Why aren't they alive today? Because they'd be incredibly old. Thus, they were terminated by the US Social Security MiB before they could break the USA budget and become our owners.

QED. 8-)

PS: For a real discussion, try the Fossil Hominids FAQ .

Before this turns into some big evolution debate, try reading the talk.origins
FAQ

Not that it will help. sigh.

In particular, check The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability to see why the 2nd law applies to closed systems, not planets warmed by suns.

Charles Darwin's views on the evolution of the eye have been taken out of context. They were part of a thought experiment on evolution. See An Old, Out of Context Quotation on that and for some intermediate steps in eye evolution.

Another very basic scientific law states that living tissue can not spawn from non living matter.

I believe that you're thinking of Lamarck and spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is part of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution comes into play when you have living organisms to evolve. See Abiogenesis FAQ for details.

If you think that "evolution is a nice idea, but pure fiction", how do you explain the results that the A-Life folks get when the implement genetic algorithms on computers? ( Artificial Life Online )

Would you be implying that Evolution is taking place? If so I strongly disagree.

On the contrary, evolution is still going on around us today. See Observed Instances of Speciation for some examples. But, you don't have to go so far afield to look for evolution. My father was nearly killed twice by a newly evolved strain of strep that was immune to dern near all antibiotics. Remember the days when a little shot of penicillin would cure just about everything? No more. Resistant strains have evolved. Now penicillin is mostly useless.

The problem is that you probably have a faulty idea of biological evolution. The shortest and clearest definition I know is, "A change in allele frequency in a population of creatures over time." (An allele is an instance of a gene, say green peas vs. yellow peas in Mendel's experiment.) Who can doubt that that happens all around us, all the time? It's simply a fact. (See What is Evolution? for a better description than I can write.)

To get back on topic, if learning is formed by growing connections between neurons, then there should be an upper limit to it that can be roughly expressed in bits. I have no idea if 13 TB is close.

In particular, check The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Probability to see why the 2nd law applies to closed systems, not planets warmed by suns.

Charles Darwin's views on the evolution of the eye have been taken out of context. They were part of a thought experiment on evolution. See An Old, Out of Context Quotation on that and for some intermediate steps in eye evolution.

Another very basic scientific law states that living tissue can not spawn from non living matter.

I believe that you're thinking of Lamarck and spontaneous generation. Spontaneous generation is part of abiogenesis, not evolution. Evolution comes into play when you have living organisms to evolve. See Abiogenesis FAQ for details.

If you think that "evolution is a nice idea, but pure fiction", how do you explain the results that the A-Life folks get when the implement genetic algorithms on computers? ( Artificial Life Online )

Would you be implying that Evolution is taking place? If so I strongly disagree.

On the contrary, evolution is still going on around us today. See Observed Instances of Speciation for some examples. But, you don't have to go so far afield to look for evolution. My father was nearly killed twice by a newly evolved strain of strep that was immune to dern near all antibiotics. Remember the days when a little shot of penicillin would cure just about everything? No more. Resistant strains have evolved. Now penicillin is mostly useless.

The problem is that you probably have a faulty idea of biological evolution. The shortest and clearest definition I know is, "A change in allele frequency in a population of creatures over time." (An allele is an instance of a gene, say green peas vs. yellow peas in Mendel's experiment.) Who can doubt that that happens all around us, all the time? It's simply a fact. (See What is Evolution? for a better description than I can write.)

To get back on topic, if learning is formed by growing connections between neurons, then there should be an upper limit to it that can be roughly expressed in bits. I have no idea if 13 TB is close.